Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: Before I call Alec Shelbrooke, I wish to inform the House how I will be applying its sub judice rules to any exchanges on Mr Coulson’s case. I ask the House for some forbearance, as it is important to Members and those outside the House that the position is clear. The House will know that Mr Coulson has now been convicted on a charge of conspiracy to intercept communications. The court has not yet sentenced Mr Coulson for that offence. There has as yet been no verdict on two charges against him of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The rules of the House’s sub judice resolution, which the House rightly expects me to enforce, apply to criminal cases which are “active”. They cease to be active when, and I quote,
	“they are concluded by verdict and sentence”,
	so they apply in this case.
	At the same time, the House’s resolution gives the Chair discretion in applying the rules. I have taken appropriate advice, as the House would expect—and, indeed, been in receipt of unsolicited advice, for which I am of course grateful. In the light of all the circumstances, I have decided, one, to allow reference to Mr Coulson’s conviction; two, not to allow reference to his sentencing by the court, such as speculation on the nature of that sentence; and three, not to allow reference to those charges on which the verdict is awaited. I rely on hon. Members to exercise restraint, but if that proves unavailing, I will of course intervene. I hope that is helpful to the House.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Trade Union Facility Time

Alec Shelbrooke: What recent progress he has made on reform of trades union facility time in Government Departments.

Francis Maude: Mr Speaker, with permission I will take questions 1 and 10 together.
	At the time of the last general election, there was no monitoring of taxpayer-funded trade union facility time in the civil service. We now have controls in place that saved £19 million last year, and we have already reduced
	the number of taxpayer-funded full-time union officials from 200 in May 2010 down to around a dozen this month.

Mr Speaker: I allowed the right hon. Gentleman to continue his answer, but my office advises me that it has not been notified of the grouping to which he refers. It might have been the intention, but my office indicates that it has not been notified of it, which obviously it should have been.

Alec Shelbrooke: In the past, Departments gave paid time off for union conferences. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government will not be spending taxpayers’ money packing civil servants off to the seaside?

Francis Maude: Under the rules that operated under the last Government, it was absolutely the case that thousands of union officials, paid for by the taxpayer as civil servants, were given paid time off—sometimes, extraordinarily, with paid travel and expenses—to attend union conferences at the seaside. We have stopped this. They can take unpaid time off to attend conferences, and any decision to award paid time off is entirely at the discretion of the Minister in charge of that civil servant’s Department.

Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the guidelines will allow those people responsible to the Home Office for the efficient administration of passport services to be involved in the consultation to find a solution to the crisis, given that they predicted it in the first place?

Francis Maude: It remains and has always been the case that union officials are entitled to paid time off to pursue their union duties, as opposed to activities. If those discussions are in pursuit of their duties because they relate to particular employment issues, that will of course continue to be the case.

David Morris: What has my right hon. Friend put in place to monitor and indeed limit the facilities provided to trade unions at taxpayers’ expense within the civil service?

Francis Maude: Again, there were no arrangements at all to monitor what facilities were being made available to union officials at taxpayers’ expense. We have now put in place arrangements to try to find out exactly what is going on, but I regret to say that the data are not yet complete. However, we will continue to pursue this.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Paymaster General will of course be aware that many private sector employers, such as Rolls-Royce, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus, all take advantage of facility time, because they know it helps with workplace relations and with their obligations to consult. The private sector can recognise the benefits of facility time, so rather than knocking facility time in the public sector, why can he not recognise its benefits for that sector?

Francis Maude: I do recognise the benefits, which is why—even if we wanted to, which we do not—we are not proposing to get rid of it altogether. All we are saying is that it should be in accordance with the law and the obligations that the statute places on us as
	employers. I am the first to recognise that there are often advantages in being able to resolve disputes quickly and locally before they escalate, which is why some facility time will continue to be available.

Departmental Efficiency

Nick Smith: What recent progress he has made on the Government’s efficiency agenda.

Henry Smith: What progress he has made on his programme of savings through efficiency and reform of central Government.

Charlie Elphicke: What estimate he has made of the savings arising from measures to increase departmental efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: On 10 June, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I announced savings through efficiency reform of central Government of £14.3 billion for 2013-14, against a 2009-10 baseline. Those savings are both recurring and non-recurring items, and include £5.4 billion from procurement and commercial savings, £3.3 billion in project savings and £4.7 billion from work force reform and pension savings.

Nick Smith: The Government have said that they want to move jobs out of Whitehall and into areas such as south Wales, but in August 1,000 jobs could be offshored, perhaps to India, from the Ministry of Justice shared services centre in Newport. Will the Minister look at this again?

Francis Maude: Earlier this week, the MOJ announced its plans to take forward the agreed plans on shared services, which were first put forward under the Labour Government in 2004 but did not begin to be implemented until 2012. There are major efficiency savings to be made. I am sure that SSCL—Shared Services Connected Ltd—the shared service company the MOJ proposes to use, will look carefully at all the facilities and will want to concentrate activity at the most effective and efficient ones, and I see absolutely no reason why Newport’s should not be among those.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer and for the significant amounts of taxpayer money that the Cabinet Office is saving. What role can greater digitisation play in obtaining further efficiencies?

Francis Maude: Moving public services online has a major part to play, both in making services more convenient and designed around the needs of the user rather than the convenience of the Government, and in making major savings. Typically, the cost of an online transaction is about one fiftieth of the cost of the transaction being done face to face, but for those people who are not online there will always be an assisted digital option.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the size of the savings being made not highlight the truly galactic waste of money by the previous Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend set out his vision for further savings in the future?

Francis Maude: No good organisation gives up on pursuing efficiency savings year after year. The Office for National Statistics has shown that in the public sector productivity remained static during the Labour years while it rose by nearly 30% in the private services sector. If productivity had risen by the same amount in the public sector, the budget deficit that the coalition Government inherited could have been many, many tens of billions of pounds lower.

Jessica Morden: I want the Minister to understand just how fearful and uncertain staff at the MOJ shared services centre in Newport feel after this week’s announcement of privatisation. How can he justify the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister talking about the UK becoming an onshoring nation when under this contract jobs could be offshored? What guarantees are the Government offering that these jobs could stay in Newport?

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, the hon. Lady must withdraw the use of the word “hypocrisy”, as it relates to an individual Minister.

Jessica Morden: I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

Francis Maude: The hon. Lady is making assumptions about what will happen to those jobs which I have no reason to believe are justified. If the quality of the work and the efficiency at Newport is as good as she believes, I am sure that the management of SSCL will want to look carefully at retaining jobs there.

Philip Hollobone: Which part of which Department has provided the most fertile ground for efficiency savings?

Francis Maude: That is a very good question, but if I were to go through that in elaborate detail, you would cut me short, Mr Speaker. There are opportunities for efficiency savings right across Government and the public sector. We have made significant progress, but, as my hon. Friend would expect, there is considerably more that can and should be done.

Keith Vaz: Serco had to repay £68 million and G4S £104 million because they overcharged the Ministry of Justice. Why are they still receiving contracts when they have obviously been very good at efficiently taking money off the taxpayer?

Francis Maude: The practices to which the right hon. Gentleman refers date from contracts let by the previous Government, and those malpractices had been going on for many years. It is because the quality of contract management in Government is at last beginning to improve that those malpractices came to light at all. Therefore, the taxpayer was able to be recompensed for the money that had been wrongly pumped out of the door during that time. We are making progress on this, but again there is more to be done.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister boasts that his efficiency agenda is cutting hundreds of millions of pounds from Government IT
	spend, but figures that we have seen show that IT spend is flat overall, and has in his Department and others, including the universal credit maxed out Department for Work and Pensions, risen massively between 30% and 70%. Will the Minister confirm that IT spend is not falling, and accept that it is his lack of leadership in allowing continuing turf wars between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office and DWP that is preventing the IT transformation that we need?

Francis Maude: The hon. Lady is completely right that we need an ICT transformation. What we inherited—the legacy—was a series of extremely expensive, opaque IT contracts. The Government did not even know what they were getting for what they were spending. We need to reform that. We must wait for some of these contracts, which were excessively long, to come to an end. That process is beginning. The British Government were spending more on IT per capita than any other Government in the world, yet our rankings, until recently, were falling. There is much to be done, but she is in no position from where she sits to be lecturing this Government, who are grappling with the issue.

Government Statistics

Kelvin Hopkins: What steps he is taking to ensure the accuracy of Government statistics.

Nick Hurd: The UK Statistics Authority was established to promote and safeguard official statistics for the public good. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an independent body directly accountable to Parliament, and it is responsible for assessing and monitoring the accuracy of Government statistics against the code of practice for official statistics.

Kelvin Hopkins: Estimates by the TUC and others of uncollected taxes—the so-called tax gap—are some three times higher than those figures given by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Government. Are the Government simply massaging those figures downwards to disguise how appalling they really are?

Nick Hurd: I would like to think that this Government, unlike the previous one, are not in the business of massaging statistics. The central point is that we now have, as a result of the lack of credibility of statistics under the previous Government, the official UK Statistics Authority, which does an excellent job in safeguarding the integrity of public statistics.

Duncan Hames: The Nomis website publishes estimates of unemployment by constituency using the annual population survey, which itself uses a sample of under 300 people of working age per constituency. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the publishers of local statistics based on national surveys to assist the users of those statistics in understanding the confidence intervals, which can swamp tiny sample sizes?

Nick Hurd: Absolutely, yes.

Union Subscriptions

Nick Brown: Which Departments have responded to his cross-departmental review of check-off deductions of union subscriptions.

Francis Maude: We have asked Departments to review their own arrangements. The civil service management code requires Departments to recover the cost of the provision of this service, but most do not do so. These reviews, therefore, are very timely.

Nick Brown: A number of Secretaries of State have already rejected the idea. The only one to take it forward ended up in court. They lost and had costs found against the Government. There is no public interest or cost saving in what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, so why does he persist in attacking the Government’s own employees for trying to act in combination by joining a trade union?

Francis Maude: This is in no sense an attack on membership of trade unions. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it is.”] We can see who speaks for the trade unions and for their paymasters. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know better, from his experience. Why is it that many trade unions do not rely on check-off at all but use the modern means of connection with their members of direct debit, which is available to all?

Youth Services

Pat Glass: What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

Mike Kane: What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

Nick Hurd: We are supporting the voluntary sector in offering new opportunities for young people through programmes such as the National Citizen Service. In addition, we will be offering practical support to local authorities who want to deliver high-quality new services in an innovative way, for example by access to our £10 million support programme for mutuals.

Pat Glass: Youth services have largely disappeared under this Government and have been replaced by the National Citizen Service, which, despite the accolades that it receives in the House from Ministers, is turning into little more than an extra six weeks’ holiday for students and young people who really do not need it. What are the Government doing about youth services for the most vulnerable and those at greatest risk?

Nick Hurd: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is talking rubbish about the National Citizen Service. I refer her to the independent research which shows exactly the benefits that it gives to young people, which is why more and more of them are signing up to take part in it. She is right that it has been too easy to cut youth services at local level. There are no easy choices, but we are actively working with local authorities who want to commission in innovative ways to help them to deliver better with less.

Mike Kane: The BBC has revealed that in real terms the amount spent on youth services has fallen by 36% in the past two years. Does the Minister agree with Fiona Blacke, the chief executive of the National Youth Agency, that in the areas with the greatest cuts, the opportunities for young people are being significantly diminished?

Nick Hurd: The Labour party continues to be in denial about why there were cuts in the first place. I have said very publicly that we are concerned that youth services have been too easy to cut, in part because there is insufficient evidence about the value of the work that they do in terms of outcomes. We want to work with commissioners to change that, but at the same time we are actively investing from the centre to create new opportunities for young people, not just through the NCS but by backing the scouts and other uniformed organisations and the organisations that have formed part of the Step Up to Serve campaign.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend accept that well-directed youth work is a vital part of crime prevention and as such saves money and prevents victimisation in the long run?

Nick Hurd: I agree wholeheartedly. The Government are a strong supporter of the value of high-quality, well-structured youth services, which is why we are working with local authorities to help in their difficult task of delivering more with less, as well as supporting the voluntary sector to offer more opportunities for young people to develop.

Jason McCartney: Hundreds of young people in my constituency have enjoyed the team spirit, camaraderie and community projects that the National Citizen Service brings. Will the Minister assure the House that even more NCS programmes will be rolled out this summer?

Nick Hurd: Yes, because young people want them. This summer the 100,000th young person will take part in NCS; 98% of young people would recommend it to their friends. There is a fantastic buzz around it because young people recognise that it is a fantastic use of their time and they get so much out of it.

Social Enterprises

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent progress his Department has made on supporting social enterprises.

Nick Hurd: We are doing a great deal to support the growth of social enterprises. We are making it easier for them to access finance through social investment and to deliver public services through the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, and through a wide range of capacity-building support.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of Big Society Capital, in particular the provision of capital to smaller, local community social enterprises, which may need thousands or tens of thousands rather than millions?

Nick Hurd: Big Society Capital is the first institution of its kind in the world and I am delighted to say that it is working very well. Its recent annual report shows that it has already made £150 million of new money available to social enterprises through 31 different investments.

Topical Questions

Peter Aldous: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for efficiency and reform, civil service issues, public sector industrial relations strategy, Government transparency, civil contingency, civil society and cyber-security.

Peter Aldous: In March my right hon. Friend visited East Coast Community Healthcare, a staff-owned social enterprise providing community-based NHS and social care in my constituency. At present it is disadvantaged by having to pay more for insurance and IT than if it had remained in the NHS. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Government will work with social enterprises such as ECCH to address such obstacles to their long-term success?

Francis Maude: I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary about that issue, but my hon. Friend will have seen, as I did when we visited that public service mutual, the extraordinary level of enthusiasm, commitment and dedication which, having spun out of the NHS to be a staff-owned mutual, was invested in their activity.

Michael Dugher: An excellent report published last week by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam university on the state of the coalfields confirmed that the most deprived areas of the country have the lowest concentration of voluntary sector organisations. On top of that, we know that local authorities in those same areas are suffering disproportionate cuts—a double whammy for the poorest parts of the country. Why are the Government not doing enough specifically to help the voluntary sector in the poorest parts of the country?

Nick Hurd: Well, we are. We set up a programme, Community First, which is delivering neighbourhood grants in the 600 most deprived wards in the country. We have also worked closely with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Big Lottery Fund to use the European funding structures to unlock £500 million-worth of funding for social inclusion in some of the most deprived communities in the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Stephen Metcalfe: I welcome the work that this Government have done to encourage volunteering, especially through the Points of Light programme. When will my constituents, who work so hard, be recognised through this programme?

Nick Hurd: With more and more people volunteering, it is right that we should do more to recognise and celebrate their great work. Points of Light is a new daily award from the Prime Minister. Today he is announcing the 50th winner. I would welcome recommendations from all constituencies, including South Basildon and East Thurrock.

Dan Jarvis: City Year recruits 18 to 25-year-olds to volunteer as mentors and tutors in schools in deprived areas. They have a proven track record of tackling educational under-attainment and developing young people to become more employable and more engaged citizens. Will the Minister consider recognising a full-time year of voluntary service as a new pathway for young people, as a transition between education and employment, by giving it a status that will ensure that young people have confidence that their commitment is publicly recognised?

Nick Hurd: Like many Members across the House, I am a huge supporter of City Year. The Cabinet Office has backed it with a substantial grant and it is part of a wider coalition of organisations that got together to structure the Step Up To Serve campaign, which is supported by all three party leaders and led by the Prince of Wales and which aims to double the number of young people involved in volunteering. I hope the hon. Gentleman can welcome that.

Julian Smith: As part of their long-term economic plan, this Government have saved £1.2 billion by rationalising the Government estate. That is the equivalent of 26 Buckingham palaces. What more can be done by local councils and local authorities to replicate such savings?

Francis Maude: We have already done a great deal on this front, as my hon. Friend recognises, but there is much more that can be done to collocate different public sector agencies, including local government. That not only saves a lot of money by sharing the overhead, but provides a much more convenient place for the citizen and businesses to interact with the state in its different forms.

Jim Cunningham: The Government agreed to refund the Big Lottery Fund the £675 million taken for the Olympics. With the sales of the Olympic assets, is that still going ahead? How will the lottery be refunded if Olympic assets are leased instead of sold?

Mr Speaker: If the Minister heard that, I congratulate him on his hearing. The acoustics were not great.

Francis Maude: I heard some of it, Mr Speaker—enough to know that the right thing for me to do is to write to the hon. Gentleman with a detailed answer.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Damian Collins at the start of questions to the Prime Minister, I wish to inform the House how I will be applying its sub judice rules to any exchanges on Mr Coulson’s case. I ask the House for some forbearance, as it is important to Members and those outside the House that the position is clear.
	The House will know that Mr Coulson has now been convicted on a charge of conspiracy to intercept communications. The court has not yet sentenced Mr Coulson for that offence. There has as yet been no verdict on two charges against him of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The rules of the House’s sub judice resolution, which the House rightly expects me to enforce, apply to criminal cases which are active. They cease to be active when
	“they are concluded by verdict and sentence”,
	so they apply in this case.
	At the same time, the House’s resolution gives the Chair discretion in applying the rules. I have taken appropriate advice, as the House would expect—and, indeed, been in receipt of unsolicited advice, for which I am of course grateful. In the light of all the circumstances, I have decided, one, to allow reference to Mr Coulson’s conviction; two, not to allow reference to his sentencing by the court, such as speculation on the nature of that sentence; and three, not to allow reference to those charges on which the verdict is awaited. I rely upon hon. Members to exercise restraint, but if that proves unavailing, I will of course intervene. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Damian Collins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Damian Collins: Andy Coulson’s conviction shows that the parliamentary inquiry into phone hacking, of which I was a member, was consistently misled by him and others over the extent of, and knowledge of, phone hacking at News International. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that our first concern should be to see redress for the victims of phone hacking and to uphold the democratic principle of a free press?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first thing is that we should remember the victims, people who had their privacy wrecked, and we should ensure that that cannot happen again. As we do so, we must, as he says, cherish a free and vibrant press in our country. I said yesterday, and I say again today, that I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did so on the basis of assurances that I received and that the Select Committee also received, but I always said that if those assurances turned out to be wrong, I would apologise fully and frankly to this House of Commons, and I do so again today from this Dispatch Box. I am sorry; this was the wrong decision, but I think it is right that we have had a public inquiry in this
	country, and it is right that we have proper investigations. Yesterday once again showed that no one is above the law in our country.

Edward Miliband: Today we know that for four years the Prime Minister’s hand-picked, closest adviser was a criminal, and brought disgrace to Downing street. We now also know that the Prime Minister wilfully ignored multiple warnings about him. On 8 July 2009, The Guardian published evidence of phone hacking on an industrial scale while Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World. At that time, Andy Coulson was his director of communications. What action did he take?

David Cameron: As I said a moment ago, the assurances I sought and received were the same assurances received by the Press Complaints Commission, by a Select Committee of this House, and by police investigations. They were also thoroughly gone into by the Leveson inquiry—an inquiry the right hon. Gentleman supported. He talks about warnings. Specifically on the warning from The Guardian, Leveson had this to say:
	“The editor of the Guardian did not raise the issue with Mr Cameron at meetings both in the month after the article was published and the following year.”
	He says this—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will want to hear it:
	“there can be no criticism of Mr Cameron for not raising the issue”.
	We had an exhaustive inquiry. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not like the result of the inquiry, but he should accept it.

Edward Miliband: That is a long-winded way of saying that, when it came to Andy Coulson, the Prime Minister just did not want to know the evidence. First warning: ignored.
	Let us move on to May 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister warned the Prime Minister in person about his deep concerns about Andy Coulson. So he was warned by his deputy. What action did he take?

David Cameron: Every single one of these issues was dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Lucas, calm yourself. I am trying to offer you, on a weekly basis, therapeutic guidance, but there is a long way to go. There needs to be calm on both sides of the House.

David Cameron: Every single one of these issues was dealt with exhaustively by the Leveson inquiry. The terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry were agreed by the right hon. Gentleman, and they included
	“the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct”.
	That is what Leveson looked into. He looked into all of these questions about the warnings I was given and the response I gave, and he made no criticism of my conduct. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed by the Leveson inquiry, but he called for it, it took place, and he should heed what it said.

Edward Miliband: No, this is about the Prime Minister’s character, his judgment, and the warnings he ignored, including from the Deputy Prime Minister. Warning No. 2: ignored.
	Then, in September 2010, The New York Times published a front-page investigation detailing Andy Coulson’s extensive knowledge of phone hacking, which included one former editor saying:
	“I’ve been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy”
	when the subject came up. What action did the Prime Minister take?

David Cameron: All of these issues—every single warning—were dealt with by the Leveson inquiry: an inquiry the right hon. Gentleman called for and an inquiry whose terms of reference he agreed. I know he cannot bear it, but Leveson made no criticism of my conduct in this regard whatsoever. You cannot call for a judge-led inquiry, participate in a judge-led inquiry, write the terms of reference of a judge-led inquiry, and then ignore what it has to say. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that all of the questions he is raising today are not new; they are the questions dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. I know—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is offering an answer and it must be heard. [Interruption.] Order. It must be heard by the House. Both sides must be heard by the House, and that will happen, as it always does, however long this session has to run—about that, let us be absolutely clear.

David Cameron: I can quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to an eight-month-long inquiry that cost £5 million, that interviewed people under oath, and that was led by a judge, but that is what he asked for, that is what was delivered, and it did not criticise my conduct in this regard at all. Instead of casting aspersions about that, he should accept the inquiry that he supported.

Edward Miliband: No answer—[Interruption.] No answer on any of the questions. No answer on why he did not act on The Guardian; no answer on why he did not act on the Deputy Prime Minister; no answer on why he did not act on The New York Times.
	Let us come to the issue of vetting. Amid all those warnings, the very least he should have—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but there is the usual ranting from the usual suspects. Be quiet, or if you cannot be quiet, and you have not got that level of self-restraint, leave the Chamber—we can perfectly well manage without you.

Edward Miliband: Let us come to the issue of vetting. Amid all those warnings, the very least that the Prime Minister should have done was insist immediately on coming to office that Andy Coulson should have the highest level of security vetting, as his six predecessors over the previous 14 years had had. Why did he not insist on that?

David Cameron: Again, Leveson, in his inquiry, looked directly into that issue. This is what he found—[Interruption.] He concluded:
	“The level of security clearance was not the decision of either Mr Cameron or Mr Coulson but the Civil Service.”
	Those are the correct procedures. If the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that direct vetting would have got to the bottom of Mr Coulson’s conduct at the News of the World, he should be very clear about what Leveson found. He found that
	“the process of considering Mr Coulson for DV status would not have involved a detailed investigation of phone hacking at the NoTW”.
	That undermines the entire case that Labour has been trying to make all morning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with it. I know that he is so desperate not to talk about the economy, not to talk about unemployment, not to talk about the deficit, but he cannot rerun an inquiry that has already taken place.

Edward Miliband: Now it is clear from the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Weak!] I will tell them what is weak: failing to stand up for doing the right thing, and that is what this Prime Minister has done. Now we know the rule of this Prime Minister: the buck does not stop here, and he blames the civil service. On the civil service—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Sometimes one has to repeat a thing because people do not get it the first time. If there is quiet, we will continue. If people try to shout other people down, against the principles of British democracy, they will be stopped in their tracks. It is very simple and, I would have thought, pretty clear.

Edward Miliband: On the civil service, can the Prime Minister assure the House that at no time did Sir Gus O’Donnell, the then Cabinet Secretary, or any senior civil servant raise concerns with him or his office about hiring Andy Coulson?

David Cameron: Gus O’Donnell made that very clear in the evidence he gave the inquiry. Indeed, on the issue of vetting, he was absolutely clear that the decision about vetting is for the permanent secretary at No. 10, Sir Jeremy Heywood, someone who has served Labour Governments with impeccable service as well as a coalition Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister. What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is go through all the old questions that were answered by the Leveson inquiry. He did not like the answer, because he wanted to try to prove some cooked-up conspiracy between the Conservatives and News International. He cannot manage to do it, because the Leveson inquiry cannot find it. He asked a minute ago what is weak. I will tell him what is weak: attacking Murdoch and then standing up with a copy of TheSun newspaper, only to apologise a few hours later.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister said in his previous answer that Sir Gus O’Donnell was asked whether he raised concerns with him or his office about Andy Coulson. He was not asked that question at the Leveson inquiry. There is now a very important question, which the whole country will want an answer to, about
	whether Sir Gus O’Donnell or senior civil servants raised concerns with the Prime Minister or his office about Andy Coulson.
	The truth about this is that the charge against the Prime Minister is not one of ignorance; it is wilful negligence. At the heart of this scandal are thousands of innocent victims of phone hacking that he did not stand up for. The Prime Minister will always be remembered as the first ever occupant of his office who brought a criminal into the heart of Downing street.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman brought up the warning from The Guardian. I totally disproved him using the evidence. He brought up the idea of direct vetting. I have totally disproved him using the evidence. He cannot bear the fact that an eight-month inquiry which he hoped would pin the blame on me found that I had behaved correctly throughout. That is the case. All these issues were examined by the Leveson inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the calls we make and the leadership we give, I am happy to do so anytime, because it is leadership that has got this economy moving, it is leadership that has got our deficit down, it is leadership that is putting Britain back to work, and it is the total absence of leadership from the Labour party that shows that it has nothing to say about Britain’s economic future.

Mr Speaker: Jake Berry—not here.

Elfyn Llwyd: After many months of vehement anti-Iranian rhetoric from the Government and now the sudden change of heart, does the Prime Minister believe that the maxim “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” trumps all else?

David Cameron: No, I do not believe that. I think we should judge every regime and every organisation on its commitment to human rights, the rule of law and building pluralistic societies. We should engage with the Iranians but, as I have said, with a very clear eye and a very hard heart. We should not forget what happened to our embassy or the things that they are responsible for around the world, but we should start to build a dialogue with them in the way the Foreign Secretary has set out.

Nigel Evans: On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and I jumped from a plane 13,000 feet over the Yorkshire countryside—fortunately, we had parachutes and training from the Army’s Tigers parachute display team. As we approach armed forces day, will the Prime Minister pay tribute to our armed forces, and to the charities and the generous British people who do so much to support those who give such commitment to Queen and country, and will he reinforce the fact that this Parliament will never, ever underestimate the contribution of the armed forces of this country?

David Cameron: I absolutely support what my hon. Friend has said and commend him for jumping out of an aeroplane with a parachute. Not only should we commend our armed forces, but it is right that we have put the armed forces covenant—the military covenant—into the law of the land. Armed forces day is now an important part of our national character. On
	Remembrance Sunday, we remember those who have served and those who have fallen, but armed forces day is an opportunity to celebrate all those who serve today, to thank them and their families, and to celebrate the values they live by and all they bring to our country.

Ronnie Campbell: Does the Prime Minister realise he has made history by employing a crook at No. 10?

David Cameron: I have given a very full answer to this. Obviously, I regret the decision to employ Andy Coulson on the basis of the assurances I was given, but what I would say is that no one made any complaints about the conduct of Andy Coulson while he was at No. 10. That stands in quite a contrast to the conduct of Damian McBride, Jo Moore and Alastair Campbell. What we had from the previous Government were dodgy dossiers, burying bad news and smearing Members of Parliament.

Nick Harvey: The firefighters’ dispute continues, with some worrying consequences and no sign at present of a resolution. Before Easter, Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government got the Government Actuary’s Department to cost a set of proposals that the Fire Brigades Union was ready to put to its members. Will the Prime Minister look back at that proposal even now, and consider whether it might still have a useful part to play in bringing an end to this dispute?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look at what my hon. Friend suggests. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has been working extremely hard on this issue. I think it is important that we listen to what the firefighters say but at the same time recognise that the pensions they have access to would require the building of a £500,000 pot for anyone else in our country. We should bear that and the taxpayers’ contribution in mind.

Mark Durkan: Does the Prime Minister accept that his death at 60 proves that Gerry Conlon lost more than 15 terrible years in prison, and the anguish of his father’s torment, owing to the injustice from layers of this state? As well as his wider campaigning against injustice, there were two particular issues that mattered to Gerry in recent years. One was the need for proper, quality mental health services for those who suffered miscarriages of justice. Secondly—I would like the Prime Minister to address this in particular—notwithstanding the egregious 75-year seal put on the Guildford and other papers, Gerry was recently promised access to the archives at Kew and that people could accompany him. It was his dying wish that that would be honoured through the people he wanted to accompany him. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the dying wish of an innocent man is honoured?

David Cameron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this, and for the way in which he does it. It is hard to think what 15 years in prison, when you are innocent of a crime of which you have been convicted, would do to somebody. It is absolutely right that a
	previous Prime Minister apologised as fully as he did when this came to pass. I am very happy to look at the specific request about the records at Kew, which has not been put to me before, and perhaps contact the hon. Gentleman about that it.

Peter Bone: Unemployment in north Northamptonshire is down by a third. Last week, this Conservative-led Government approved the Rushden Lakes development—2,000 new jobs, a major retail park and a fantastic leisure facility. Will the Prime Minister explain how we have such a success? Could it be down to his long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for detailing what is happening in Northamptonshire in terms of the extra jobs and the development. I think what it proves is that we have an entrepreneurial economy, particularly in Northamptonshire, but we need key developments to go ahead to help unlock the jobs, growth and investment that we need for our country.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was just giving Andy Coulson a second chance. That means that the Prime Minister knew that there was a first offence. He knew from the very beginning that he was taking a criminal into Downing street, and then he refused to sack him. Yesterday—and again today—he was busy praising Andy Coulson. What message does that send to the victims? Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister is only sorry because he got caught?

David Cameron: I am afraid that on this issue the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong time and time and time again. What I said about giving someone a second chance was because the individual in question had resigned as editor of the News of the World because of what had happened. Let me just refer the hon. Gentleman to what he said in this House of Commons. He said that there was no doubt that there was a
	“deal…secured between the Conservative party and News International…before the general election”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 32WH.]
	After eight months of an inquiry that cost £5 million, that was found to be complete and utter rubbish, yet have we ever heard one word of retraction from the hon. Gentleman? As ever—not a word.

Gerald Howarth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his judgment and resolution in standing up for Britain’s national interest on the question of the presidency of the EU Commission? May I put it to him that he is in tune with the concerns of the public right across Europe, unlike so many of our continental partners?

David Cameron: I think it is important on this issue to stand up and speak for what you believe in. I believe that the European Commission President should be chosen by the elected Heads of Government and Heads of State on the European Council. That is the right approach, and it is wrong to sign up to this power grab by the parties of Europe and the European Parliament. I also think it is important that the people involved
	understand that we need reform in Europe. It does not matter how hard I have to push this case, I will take it all the way to the end.

Meg Hillier: They have been to breakfast with Boris, to tea at No. 10 and have danced with the Business Secretary, but businesses in Shoreditch and the City still cannot get superfast broadband. This is now a national embarrassment. What is the Prime Minister going to do?

David Cameron: We have put a huge amount of money into expanding superfast broadband, and we are now doing better than other European countries in terms of the roll-out of our network and the speeds that are available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is working very hard to deal with those areas of the country that do not yet have superfast broadband, and I will make sure that he puts Hackney firmly on his list.

Philip Davies: The Prime Minister recruited Andy Coulson in 2007. In 2009, Nick Davies of The Guardian came to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and said:
	“I have never seen a piece of paper that directly links Andy Coulson to any of the activity that we are discussing of either kind.”
	In February 2010, the Select Committee, on which I serve, concluded, with all-party support:
	“We have seen no evidence that Andy Coulson knew that phone-hacking was taking place.”
	Does the Prime Minister agree that those who now claim they knew he was involved in 2007—that seems to include the current Leader of the Opposition—should explain why they did not pass on that information to the police or to the Select Committee? Or are they trying to rewrite history to deflect attention from their own chronic leadership shortcomings?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend put it rather better than I did—[Interruption.] Thank you.

David Simpson: I am sure that the Prime Minister and the whole House will join me in welcoming the successful visit by Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to Northern Ireland this week. Will the Prime Minister also join me in condemning Sinn Fein’s foolish approach to welfare reform, which, instead of protecting the vulnerable in Northern Ireland, is costing the Northern Ireland Executive £5 million per month in fines?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both counts. As ever, the Queen’s visit to Northern Ireland has been a huge success, and it has highlighted the economic renaissance that is taking place there. With over 800 foreign investors, Northern Ireland is now one of the top UK destinations for investment. May I just say that I am extremely envious of Her Majesty’s being able to see the iron throne on the set of “Game of Thrones”? That is now one of the most successful television productions anywhere in the world, and it is hosted in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right about welfare reform. The point of it is to help people to get back to work, rather than just to cut budgets, and we need to explain to all the parties in Northern Ireland that we should be engaging in welfare reform to help to get people back to work.

Guy Opperman: On this side of the House, we have a long-term economic plan, with education funding at its heart and as a consequence. This can be seen in the enhanced £269 per pupil funding that all schools in Northumberland will receive next April. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to continue to make progress on education funding, so that as the plan takes effect we get fairer funding for all the schools in this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that education and better schools and skills are at the heart of our long-term economic plan. He should note that we are spending £18 billion on school buildings during this Parliament, which is more than Labour spent in its first two terms combined. Specifically on the issue of a fair national funding formula, we have made some progress by allocating £350 million to the least fairly funded local authorities. That will make a real difference in the coming year.

Jim McGovern: On Monday morning, before boarding the 9 o’clock train from Dundee to London, I joined a picket line with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. They were protesting against the closure of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices in Dundee and trying to protect their terms and conditions. Their main concern, however, was that they believed there to be a Government plan for the privatisation of HMRC. Will the Prime Minister assure those members that there will be no such plans on his watch?

David Cameron: The plan we have for HMRC is to make it more efficient and more effective at collecting taxes from the people who should be paying them. That is the plan.

Andrew Stephenson: On Sunday, 17-year-old James Goodship tragically drowned in Lake Burwain in my constituency. His death has left his family and friends, and the local community, in shock. As this week is drowning prevention week, what can the Prime Minister do to raise awareness of the dangers of open water and to improve water safety, particularly during this warm summer?

David Cameron: My heart goes out to the family that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and he is absolutely right to raise this issue. For anyone to lose a son in such a tragic way is absolutely heartbreaking. We need to spread better information about the dangers of swimming in open water. We also need to do more to teach swimming and life-saving skills in schools. I also think that the heroism Bill that we are bringing forward—which will help people who want to do good and rescue people—will help, in a small way, as well.

Hazel Blears: Hundreds of young British men and some women are fighting in Syria and now with ISIS in Iraq. Some of them will come back to the United Kingdom trained, radicalised and ready to attack. Our Prevent programme has been
	cut by £17 million, and the funding for local authorities to do the essential long-term community work has all but disappeared. Will the Prime Minister undertake an urgent review of the Prevent strategy to make sure that we have the plans and the resources to protect our young people from the extremists?

David Cameron: I have great respect for the right hon. Lady on this issue, because she has always spoken clearly about the need to confront not just violent extremism but all forms of extremism. This Government have made sure that the Prevent programme is properly focused and works to target those at most risk of being radicalised. As well as doing that, we need to make sure that we shift resources in our intelligence, security and policing services to target those who are potentially returning from Syria or Iraq so that they are properly covered and dealt with. We have made a large number of arrests and we have confiscated passports. We have taken all the action necessary to keep our country safe.

Annette Brooke: Julia’s House, a wonderful children’s hospice in my constituency, is currently carrying out research with Bournemouth university into the impact of short breaks on family relationships. Will the Prime Minister give higher priority to the funding of short breaks as an invest-to-save measure?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about this issue. Any family bringing up a severely disabled child knows that finding one of these hospices—I will never forget finding Helen House in Oxford, which was actually the first children’s hospice, I think, anywhere in the country—is a complete life saver as they carry out brilliant, brilliant work. That is why we have committed over £800 million for local authorities to invest in short breaks for disabled children, and I am sure that this research by Bournemouth university will help inform our work in the future.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of the alleged mis-selling of cash-back warranties by Scottish Power? Does it concern him as much as it concerns me that one of the UK’s largest utility companies has allegedly tried to evade paying back money to 625,000 people, many of whom are the poorest in our society? I wonder whether he would be prepared to meet me and a cross-party delegation to get to the truth of the matter.

David Cameron: I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. Of course, this took place over a decade ago and it was looked at at the time by the then Department of Trade and Industry, but in the light of the concern among members of the public about the outcome of the liquidation, I would like to encourage the hon. Gentleman to give the Business Department all the new information that has come to light, if he has not done so already, and I will fix a meeting for him with the Business Secretary and members of the all-party group so that we can try and get to the bottom of this issue.

Richard Benyon: My constituent Michael Butcher installed CCTV in his mother’s flat because she was a dementia sufferer, and he recorded on
	it a brutal assault on her by her carer. Unbelievably to me, the Crown Prosecution Service has refused to prosecute her carer, because it says it is not in the public interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we as a society should be totally intolerant of all attacks on vulnerable people with dementia?

David Cameron: It would not be right for me to comment on a CPS decision in a specific case, but on the general point about whether we should be intolerant of breaches of care against elderly people, particularly those with dementia and who are reliant on others, yes, we should. Our dementia strategy is all about not just increasing the research into trying to tackle dementia but about making sure that our care homes and hospitals and, indeed, communities become more dementia-friendly.

Yasmin Qureshi: Did Gus O’ Donnell or senior civil servants raise directly with the Prime Minister any concern they may have had about Mr Coulson?

David Cameron: A number of senior civil servants gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and were closely questioned by Leveson. The whole process of the employment of Andy Coulson, his arrival in No. 10 Downing street, his vetting and the warnings that were given—each and every single one was dealt with by the investigation that the Leader of the Opposition supported, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot bear the fact that an independent, judge-led inquiry came to that conclusion. He is the first Leader of the Opposition not able to ask for an independent judicial inquiry—because he has already had one.

Richard Graham: Although the World cup football results may not have been quite what we wanted in England, we have the 2015 rugby world cup to look forward to. As my right hon. Friend knows, four foreign teams will be playing in Kingsholm in my constituency. Does he agree that this is a great opportunity to use the Chancellor’s new brownfield site fund, plus perhaps a new city deal from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the regeneration of our small cities is ready for the World cup 2015?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to say that after the disappointment of the football, and also of that stunning test match where we lost on the second last ball, it is perhaps time to look to rugby to provide us with something to lift our spirits.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Caroline Lucas.

Caroline Lucas: In my constituency, one-third of homes are in the private rented sector. Tenants are often ripped off and forced to move at a month’s notice, and the average rent for a two-bedroom home is £1,200 a month. Will the Prime Minister back my call for a living rent commission to explore ways of bringing rents back into line with the basic cost of living?

David Cameron: There is a debate shortly on the private rented sector and how we get more houses and more competitive rents. Of course we want more competitive rents, but looking at the policies of her party it seems as if it would never build any houses anywhere for anyone, and as a result rents would go up.

Point of Order

Robert Buckland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way that we can place on the record my understanding that the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is that his wife has been rushed into hospital and he has had to attend at her bedside?

Mr Speaker: There is, and the hon. Gentleman has helpfully done just that. I thank him for that, just as I think the House will thank him. Needless to say, we wish Mr Berry’s wife a speedy recovery.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Small Business, Enterprise and Employment bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Edward Davey, Mr Oliver Letwin, Andrea Leadsom, Michael Fallon, Matthew Hancock and Jenny Willott, presented a Bill to make provision about improved access to finance for businesses and individuals; to make provision about regulatory provisions relating to business and certain voluntary and community bodies; to make provision about the exercise of procurement functions by certain public authorities; to make provision for the creation of a Pubs Code and Adjudicator for the regulation of dealings by pub-owning businesses with their tied pub tenants; to make provision about the regulation of the provision of childcare; to make provision about information relating to the evaluation of education; to make provision about the regulation of companies; to make provision about company filing requirements; to make provision about the disqualification from appointments relating to companies; to make provision about insolvency; to make provision about the law relating to employment; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 11) with explanatory notes (Bill 11-EN).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Private Rented Sector

[Relevant Documents: First Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2013-14, on The Private Rented Sector, HC 50, and the Government’s response, Cm 8730.]

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

Emma Reynolds: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the private rented sector’s growing role in meeting housing need; notes that there are nine million people, including more than one million families with more than two million children, now renting privately; notes with concern the lack of stability and certainty that the sector provides to those who rent privately; further notes the increasing cost of renting and the unreasonable letting agent fees levied on tenants; calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to reform the sector by banning letting agent fees being charged to tenants and making three year tenancies the standard for those who rent their homes in the private sector; and further calls on the Government to act on unpredictable rent rises by prohibiting excessive rent rises during longer-term tenancies.
	The Opposition have called this debate because we believe that the private rented sector is simply not fit for purpose—in fact, it is more suited to the 1980s than the 21st century. The sector has grown massively in size, and is beyond recognition in terms of the demographics and character of those renting from private landlords. Some 9 million people now rent privately—more than those who rent a social home. More than a third of those who rent privately are families with children, and nearly half are over 35.
	Many people who are renting privately do so not out of choice but because they cannot get on the housing ladder and are being priced out, or because they cannot secure a social home. Private renting is not a cheap alternative—far from it. In fact, it is the most expensive type of tenure. On average, people renting privately spend 41% of their income on housing, compared with 30% in the social rented sector and 19% for owner-occupiers, but that extra expense is not buying greater stability or higher standards. In fact, those who rent privately are more likely to live in a non-decent home than in any other tenure. We have one of the most short-term, insecure and unstable private rented sectors in Europe.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the problems with the private rented sector. I presume she is aware that I tabled a private Member’s Bill on this subject last year. Does she support its contents, and can we work together to make some progress on it? Many people across the House share these concerns.

Emma Reynolds: There is cross-party concern on this issue, but the question is whether the Government are willing and able to take action; I am afraid that up until now they have not been.

Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the issues in the private rented sector are a particular problem in London, where renters are the victims of an increasingly dysfunctional housing market and spiralling house prices and rents?

Emma Reynolds: My hon. Friend pre-empts a point I was about to make. She is absolutely right that the private rented sector is particularly problematic in high-demand areas, not only in London, but in Oxford, York and other parts of the country where demand is far outstripping supply, which is one of the reasons rents are so exorbitant.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but she did not mention—inadvertently, I know—Northern Ireland, which, as I am sure she knows, particularly suffers from a lack of supply in the private rented sector.

Emma Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that fact.
	The status quo in the private rented sector is good for neither landlords nor tenants—both parties need and deserve greater stability—but the Government do not have to travel to Venezuela or Vietnam to find a more stable, just and equitable private rented sector: 10 years ago, Ireland introduced four-year tenancies, with a ceiling on rent increases linked to average market rents. As set out in the motion, our reforms would give greater stability and peace of mind to the 9 million people renting in the private rented sector.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady accept that in 13 years the last Labour Government built fewer council houses than even the Thatcher Government? One of the reasons for the housing crisis, including in the private rented sector, is that the last Labour Government did not build council houses; the coalition Government are starting to build them.

Emma Reynolds: I will take our record over the Government’s record any time. We built 2 million houses in government, 500,000 of which were affordable, and I am really proud of the decent homes programme, which transformed the council housing stock in our country, which was left in a shocking state at the end of the ’90s.

Mark Prisk: rose—

Emma Reynolds: I want to make a bit of progress, as I know that several hon. Members want to speak in this debate, but I will give way shortly.
	I shall set out the three proposals in our motion. First, we would legislate for longer-term tenancies; secondly, we would act on unpredictable rent rises; and thirdly, we would ban letting agent fees on tenants. On the first element, our motion calls on the Government to legislate to make three-year tenancies the norm. Under our proposals, tenants would have a six-month probationary period, and as long as they respected the property and paid their rent on time, they would then have the stability of the rest of that three-year period. Of course, we would build in protections for landlords—that is obviously essential—but crucially it would provide much-needed stability for private renting tenants.

Andy Slaughter: Security of tenure is crucial. Under the coalition Government, which the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) supports, councils are discharging their responsibilities into the private rented sector, and tenants are regularly being evicted only because they are reliant on housing benefit and because rents are so high—in my constituency, it costs £770 a week for a three-bedroom flat—and according to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for housing, the fact that they are on benefits is a good reason to evict them.

Emma Reynolds: The housing Minister’s comments were absolutely appalling, and it is a shame he is not here so that we can debate them with him. It simply is not acceptable for a private landlord to evict somebody just because they are on benefits, which is why we are proposing to get rid of no-fault eviction.

Mark Prisk: rose—

Emma Reynolds: I give way to the former housing Minister.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady says that a Labour Government would legislate for a minimum of three years. Is she telling the House that no shorter tenancies would be allowed under a Labour Government, and if there would be exceptions, what would they be?

Emma Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman raises a key point—in fact, he has pre-empted the very next section of my speech. He is absolutely right that there would still be students and people working in different parts of the country who would want more flexibility. Our proposals do not exclude that; they include it. Essentially, however, our main message today is that whereas 20 years ago students and people moving around the country were the main groups renting privately, there is now an increasing number of people who are settling in the private sector—they can be individuals, couples or families with children. We think that the current set-up does not cater for that growing group of people within the private rented sector.

Caroline Lucas: I absolutely follow the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying, so I put it to her that, following that logic still further, why have the official Opposition not adopted the position of Shelter and others that are looking for a five-year minimum tenancy along those lines?

Emma Reynolds: We are calling for a three-year tenancy. We think that we need to change the culture of short-termism that has developed around the private rented sector. We certainly draw a lot of inspiration from the excellent work done by Shelter, and many of its proposals are a feature of our proposals.

Meg Hillier: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage longer-term landlords, such as the former owners of the New Era estate in Hoxton, which has just been sold on? Tenants
	there are facing huge rent increases. Many people have lived there for over 20 years and felt that they had security, but that is no longer so certain. Does my hon. Friend thus agree that the long-term tenancies are important?

Emma Reynolds: Absolutely, which is why we would legislate for long-term tenancies. We simply do not agree with the Government that a voluntary approach is appropriate. Longer-term tenancies are simply not coming about, so the people my hon. Friend talks about face great insecurity.

Paul Uppal: rose—

Emma Reynolds: I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour, but then I want to make some progress.

Paul Uppal: I worked in the real estate sector for 20 years. I accept that the hon. Lady is sincere in her desire for long-term tenancies, but the way to achieve that is to bring institutional investment into housing. The last time we regulated rents to regulated tenancies, it destroyed the sector, and investment went from residential into commercial property.

Emma Reynolds: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point, and Sir Michael Lyons and his housing commission are looking into that. We absolutely need institutional investment in the private rented sector— I agree on that point—but what we are suggesting, as I shall explain in more detail in my speech, is not to go back to 1970s rent control. In fact, what we are suggesting is not that different from what the Secretary of State suggested back in October, which was to have predictability in respect of rent increases. That is not to say that the market should not set the rent up-front—the agreement on rent would obviously happen between the tenant and the landlord at the start of the tenancy—but at the end of years one and two, there would be an agreement—a benchmark and a ceiling—which is what happens in countries such as Ireland, Spain and elsewhere. That actually looks pretty similar to the press release put out by the Secretary of State in October, and we do not think that that would have a negative impact on supply.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Emma Reynolds: Let me make some progress; otherwise, I will be crowding out others who want to speak.
	There are now 2 million children living in the private rented sector. Private tenants are nine times more likely to move than those in any other tenure. Research done by an academic, Christopher Arnold, in the black country, which, as the Minister will know, is a part of the country close to my heart, suggests that one of the main drivers of children becoming NEETs—not in education, employment or training—later in life is frequently to do with moving from house to house and from school to school during childhood. We really need greater stability for families with children.
	It makes absolute sense—I hope that all Members will see this—for the default tenancy to be longer than the six to 12-month assured shorthold tenancy that is now the norm. Our proposal today is so difficult to argue against that many Government Members seem to
	have embraced the idea—well, apart from the Conservative party chairman. On hearing our proposals, his first reaction was, regrettably, to say that these proposals were “Venezuelan-style rent controls”. It seems that the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) had not spoken to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who states clearly on his website that plans for longer-term tenancies
	“will also give tenants the know-how to demand longer-term tenancies that cut costs and meet their needs”.
	Was the Conservative party chairman suggesting that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had gone all the way to Venezuela to draw inspiration for the Government’s private rented sector proposals, or was he comparing his right hon. Friend to Hugo Chávez? Alternatively, the Secretary of State may have gone all the way to Venezuela to observe its bin collection regime, but perhaps that is an issue for another day.
	I can only assume that, having examined our proposals in more depth, the Government realised that they were pretty similar to what they themselves had proposed, although we have also suggested that there should be legislation to back it up.

Neil Parish: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: I will, but then I must make some progress.

Neil Parish: I think that longer-term tenancies are a great idea, but would it not be an even better idea to make that voluntary and allow the private sector to embrace it, thus keeping the supply of housing in the rented sector? Would that not be better than using legislation?

Emma Reynolds: It may sound like a terrific idea when the hon. Gentleman voices it in the House, but it clearly is not working. Most of the 9 million people who are renting in the private sector—including the 2 million children who are members of the families who rent—face insecurity year in, year out, not knowing whether their children will stay in the same school, or whether they will be in the same local authority area.
	I was talking about Government Members. Let me complete the hat trick. During the week in which we presented our proposals, the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), said on the BBC’s “Daily Politics”:
	“On the rents issue, we put forward that policy at our conference last year”.
	Is it not interesting that there seems to be such agreement across the House on this matter? Writing in The Spectator, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the Government’s housing adviser, called not for three-year tenancies, but for six-year tenancies. He said that the private rented sector was not fit for purpose, and was
	“blocking aspiration and isolating families”.

Luciana Berger: My hon. Friend has articulated very well what Labour Members feel about a Government who are quick to criticise our proposals without doing anything themselves. Does she share my concern about the fact that, although
	the Government announced last October that a model tenancy agreement would be published, we are still waiting for it nine months on?

Emma Reynolds: Indeed. I have before me a press release from the Secretary of State, which contains plenty of warm words but no action.
	Let me explain further the second element of our proposals, to which there has been an hysterical reaction from, in particular, the Conservative party. I must make it clear, in order to avoid any more ridiculous misinterpretation, that the Labour party is not proposing a return to 1970s rent control. We are proposing that landlords and tenants should agree and set initial rents based on market value, and should conduct rent reviews no more often than once a year.
	As Ministers will know, there are different housing markets in different parts of the country. In areas of lower demand there is not a great deal of pressure on rents, but in areas of high demand, real problems are caused by excessive rent increases. We propose that there should be an upper ceiling on any rent increases. That works well in Ireland, Spain and other parts of the world.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Opposition on raising an issue in which every Member of Parliament has an interest. In my constituency, demand greatly outstrips supply, which is leading to housing problems and problems with the allocation of housing benefit. Does the hon. Lady share my concern, and that of many people outside the House, about the fact that rent arrears are causing financial difficulties and evictions? Is it not time for us to address this issue before it becomes too difficult to do anything?

Emma Reynolds: There are problems with rent arrears, notably in the social housing sector. Many people are, for the first time in their lives, finding it difficult to pay their rent and finding themselves in arrears because of the Government’s callous bedroom tax.
	Our reforms will be good for tenants, but they will also be good for landlords, and it will be essential for us to provide the right safeguards for them. The vast majority of landlords in England are small landlords with one or two properties, and they regard their extra house as a pension pot. They are interested in the increase in the value of their property over time, and in finding good tenants who pay their rent on time and treat the house like a home. We want to work with landlords to ensure that we get the balance right, but we also feel that tenants deserve extra protection and longer-term tenancies.

Meg Hillier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Emma Reynolds: I am going to make a bit of progress, because many Members on both sides of the House rightly take an interest in this issue. I will stop talking about the Secretary of State, because he seems to be becoming slightly annoyed about it.
	Let me finally deal with the third element of our proposals. We will ban the charging of letting agents’ fees to tenants. Too many letting agents charge extortionate fees every time there is a change of tenancy.

James Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: In a minute.
	Often both landlord and tenant are charged for exactly the same service, which is otherwise known as double charging. I am afraid that it is not just a matter of a few rogue letting agents; it has become widespread bad practice throughout the industry. Mystery shopping conducted for the Labour party established that some tenants were being charged up to £450, and Shelter found that some were being charged as much as £700.

James Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: In a minute.
	Those fees have included the charging of hidden sums for inventories, references, check-outs and renewals, in addition to the large amounts of money that people must find for the payment of rent up front and deposits. One in four people must borrow money in order to pay the fees and obtain a home.

James Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: In a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
	When a first-time buyer buys a property, that buyer does not pay the estate agent. The seller pays the estate agent, because the estate agent is working for the seller, in much the same way as the letting agent is working for the landlord. If first-time buyers do not pay to obtain the keys to their first homes, why should tenants have to pay £450, £700 or more in order to obtain the keys to theirs, when they are having to pay rent and a deposit?

James Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very patient.

James Morris: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about the need for transparency in regard to letting agents’ fees, but some commentators have pointed out that one of the unintended consequences of her policy would be an increase in rents. In Scotland, which has introduced the policy, rents have risen by a greater proportion than in any other regional country in the United Kingdom. What does the hon. Lady make of that?

Emma Reynolds: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. According to Shelter, which conducted a survey of letting agents throughout Scotland, there is no evidence—[Interruption.] I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene; perhaps he will have the politeness to listen. The survey by Shelter established that, since 2012, landlords in Scotland were no more likely to increase rents than landlords elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
	What the hon. Gentleman and other Government Members must ask themselves is this: is it reasonable for letting agents to charge whatever they want to charge? For that is exactly what is happening. Is it reasonable for a letting agent to charge £300, £400 or £500 for inventories, references, and all the other things
	that the landlord needs, because the letting agent is working for the landlord? And guess what? The landlord is paying a percentage—usually 8% or 10%—in order to pay management costs to the letting agent. It is not as if the letting agent is not getting any money out of the transaction.
	We are merely suggesting that, given that the tenant does not shop around for a letting agent—the tenant shops around for a property—the tenant should not have to pay the fees. If Government Members want to set their faces against Generation Rent, let them go ahead and see what the electoral consequences are.

Mark Prisk: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: I will give way to the former housing Minister.

Mark Prisk: I think that we all share the ambition to get rid of shoddy practice, but what will Labour’s proposals do to prevent landlords from raising the rent? There is nothing there.

Emma Reynolds: I have explained very clearly. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen. We will put a ceiling on rent increases during the three-year tenancies, at the end of year one and at the end of year two. In Ireland there is a ceiling on rent increases during its four-year tenancies, and there is also a ceiling in Spain. We will consult industry representatives in order to reach agreement on what the best ceiling would be, but Ireland—[Interruption.] Members should listen. Ireland uses the average market rent, which seems perfectly reasonable, and Spain uses a measure of inflation that takes housing costs into account.
	We can have a sensible debate, but all I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Housing Minister, and other Government Members is, why should not families have stability and security for three or four years to plan the lives of their children? Why should they face the insecurity of their rents going up excessively and their having to change area and school? Such insecurity is having a massive impact on the aspirations and life chances of children in that situation.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is right to focus on unfair letting agent fees. Is she aware of the study by citizens advice bureaux that showed that 73% of private tenants are dissatisfied with the service they receive from their agents?

Emma Reynolds: I have seen that report. Citizens advice bureaux are not the only ones making that point—the Office of Fair Trading has said that there is a substantial level of complaints about the letting agent industry. I say to the Government: ensuring transparency is not enough. If I am a tenant, knowing that I am going to be ripped off by £400 or £500 will not make it any easier, or any cheaper.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my friend has moved on to the administration of the agencies. Is she concerned that there is some suggestion by “Panorama” and others of racial profiling of tenants by some agencies and that many agencies refuse to even
	accept an application from anyone who is on benefit, which completely discriminates against people who need to be rehoused urgently?

Emma Reynolds: Such practice is criminal and should not be happening. At the tail end of last year, I saw reports, following some mystery shopping, that letting agents were sometimes instructed by landlords not to take on people from the black and minority ethnic communities and that letting agents were sometimes doing that themselves. That is appalling, and I am sure that there is cross-party agreement on the issue. Such practice is already criminal. This is a matter of enforcement. The law is already in place, which should stop that; but unfortunately, it seems to be happening in the capital.

Andy Slaughter: Will my hon. Friend look at the condition of the private rented sector? Double the number of private rented sector properties are unfit compared with housing association properties. When tenants complain, they are often evicted and thrown out on to the streets.

Emma Reynolds: Absolutely. That is why we proposed—I regret that the Government got rid of the legislation within weeks of getting into office—a national register of landlords and greater powers and flexibility for local authorities in areas where that is a particular issue. In London and other areas of high demand, it is a big issue. Those local authorities should have greater powers to introduce licensing schemes.

Nick de Bois: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: I will, and then I will wind up my speech.

Nick de Bois: In the motion, there is much that many can support, but where I struggle is on what you are saying about fees. You talk about limiting rents—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not talking about anything. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the hon. Lady.

Nick de Bois: I apologise, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady talks about limiting increases in a three-year contract, but surely, without the fees, all that the agencies will do is front-load increases: we will see incremental, large rises at the beginning.

Emma Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. According to research by Shelter, which has conducted a thorough piece of work on the issue, only one landlord in 120 that it surveyed said that they had noticed an increase in agency fees and had passed that on in full to their tenants. Therefore, to be frank, the change we are suggesting is not that big. It is pretty big news for tenants, but it will not make a massive difference to the letting agent industry. It will have to change its business model slightly, but what it has done, especially in the years of the global financial crash, is shift ever so slightly, often little by little, the costs of the tenancy on to the tenant, who does not have the power and leverage to negotiate with the letting agent. The tenant sees a property that they like. They do not choose the letting agent. They do not have leverage over the negotiations.
	The landlord has that leverage, and the landlord should do the deal with the letting agent on the fees, including on the fee that the landlord pays the letting agent to manage the property.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Reynolds: I will not, as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and others want to speak.
	The sad truth is that Ministers and some Government Back Benchers know that there is great concern about the instability and insecurity in the private rented sector, but they are simply unwilling to do anything about it. They have paid lip service to the concerns of generation rent, but they lack the courage of their convictions to bring about any meaningful change.
	The Government have claimed that they are in favour of long-term tenancies and predictable rents. As I said, the Secretary of State has talked about inflation-linked rent rises, but four years into this Parliament, they have failed to act. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches to look carefully at our proposals to make three-year tenancies the norm, to put a ceiling on rent increases and to ban letting agent fees charged to tenants. It would be far better for the Government to take action now, but if they continue to ignore generation rent, the next Labour Government will not.

Sheila Gilmore: My hon. Friend wants to end her speech, but I wonder whether she would be surprised to know that there will be a debate this afternoon in the Scottish Parliament on a similar subject. The Scottish National party-run Government are taking the same line as the coalition Government here and are resisting the motion proposed by my colleagues in Scotland, which is very similar to that which my hon. Friend has tabled.

Emma Reynolds: It is regrettable that the Scottish Government do not see the value of longer-term tenancies, predictability, stability and peace of mind for the millions of people renting in the private sector.
	The Minister is an assiduous Member and a very eloquent one, but he has a tendency to lecture us on everything being our fault, despite the fact that he is the one in government. Therefore, in a spirit of co-operation and friendly advice, if he supports our proposals, he will have our support—it is a generous offer. I hope that he will have the 9 million people renting from private landlords in mind when he speaks. I also hope that he can engage with our proposals, which are reasonable and sensible. They are serious proposals for a vastly improved and more secure private rented sector. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.

Nicholas Boles: It is a great pleasure to find myself doing combat with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). I hope that you will forgive, Mr Speaker, a brief further reference to “Game of Thrones” but I now know what the hound must have felt like when he faced Brienne of Tarth. I suspect that not everyone in the
	House will get that reference, but I recommend that Members look it up. It is intensely flattering to the hon. Lady. I feel sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is the Housing Minister, as a distinguished former soldier, would have been better equipped to fend off her attacks, but he is speaking at the Chartered Institute of Housing in Manchester. I know that he would like to be here.
	The Leader of the Opposition’s motion follows a pattern that is becoming wearily familiar to hon. Members. I find myself wondering whether it is even becoming a little trying for you, Mr Speaker, although I am sure that you would never let it show. The pattern unfolds like this. The Opposition begin by identifying some real problems affecting people in the communities we all represent. Every Member knows from their constituency surgeries that irresponsible landlords and rapacious letting agents do exist. Every Member wants to deal with them. The Labour party then proceeds to slander an entire industry by claiming that the problems it has identified are an almost universal experience and that irresponsible and rapacious behaviour is typical business practice. After years of policy commissions and conference debates in which Labour Members worked themselves up into a righteous lather denouncing the horrors of capitalism, they then disinter a mouldy old policy from the 1970s, spray a bit of shiny new paint over it and present it as a solution to all the ills of the modern market economy. We have seen them follow that script in relation to energy bills.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicholas Boles: I will give way in a moment.
	Now Labour Members are trotting it out for rental housing. It is difficult to say in which area their approach is more flawed.

Meg Hillier: This is not a throwback to an old era of problems; it is going back to an old era where there was security for tenants. Leaving aside the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), what are the Government doing to encourage long-term landlords who provide homes that are just for letting, not for future sale, so tenants can have a long-term future and have the security that my hon. Friend is talking about?

Nicholas Boles: In that old era, the amount of rental property in the country had fallen to 8%. It is now up at 18% because there has been investment in the sector; it is an environment in which people want to put their money.
	Government Members recognise that there are some cowboys operating in the private rental sector. Some landlords are trigger-happy in terminating tenancies, using any excuse to turf out a responsible tenant who has just had the temerity to complain about some aspect of the property. Some letting agents and property management companies are greedy, gouging hard-pressed tenants for disproportionate fees without prior notice. That is why we are making letting agents publish all their fees in a prominent place and join an approved redress scheme, so that tenants can get a fair hearing and proper compensation. It is why we are developing a
	model tenancy agreement that landlords and tenants can use if they want to enter into a longer tenancy agreement.

Luciana Berger: Can the Minister tell the House when this model tenancy agreement might be available for use and for our constituents to benefit from?

Nicholas Boles: Our approach in government, unlike that of the last Government, is to consult with the industry and with tenants before we produce things. Therefore, I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that some time this summer she will see this model tenancy agreement. That is also why we have published the well-received “How to rent” guide that will empower would-be tenants and why we are developing a code of practice to drive up standards in the industry.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will have heard my intervention on my Opposition Front-Bench friend. Can he confirm that the Government are prepared to take action to prevent racist discrimination by agencies and to stop agencies simply banning anyone in receipt of any state benefit even applying for a tenancy?

Nicholas Boles: I am grateful for that intervention because I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the suggestion that these practices are taking place. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said, there are already powers to deal with that, but it is important that they are used and enforced, and I hope very much that local authorities and police forces around the country will look closely at any evidence presented to them by “Panorama” or anyone else.

Fiona Mactaggart: The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was not just about race discrimination, but about discrimination against tenants who depend on benefits to pay their rents. Is there any remedy for that?

Nicholas Boles: The hon. Lady will understand that obviously private owners of properties have some rights to decide who they let their property to, but I feel that it would be very strongly in the interests of all private landlords to work closely with people who are in receipt of local housing allowance and ensure that they too can access properties in the private market.
	We will do nothing to undermine confidence in the long-term prospects of the rental market and drive away the institutional investors we need to expand the number of rental properties and improve their quality, but that would be the precise effect of the rent controls that the Leader of the Opposition proposes.
	I hope hon. Members will forgive a brief foray into basic micro-economics, but I do think it is important in this debate. Owners of properties have a choice: they can either sell them and invest the money elsewhere, or rent them out. The more institutions we can persuade to invest in owning and renting property, the more options will be available to would-be tenants and the more likely it is that those who want longer tenancies with predictable rent reviews will be able to find landlords who are willing to offer them.
	If, however, investors in rental property think that their costs may increase while their rents are capped, they will do one of two things: they will either insist on a much higher rent up front, increasing the costs tenants face, or they will decide to sell the property into today’s buoyant housing market and invest the money elsewhere. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East is a highly intelligent woman and a much better economist than I am. She knows that this is the reality of the rental market, so why has she come to the House today with such an obviously idiotic policy? There are reasons.

Meg Hillier: Does the Minister not recognise that this growth in the number of individual landlords investing in the way that he has just described is one of the reasons why tenants have such insecurity? What are the Government doing—he is in government now—to encourage longer-term institutional investors to invest in properties that are solely for rent long term, so that tenants can get longer-term security?

Nicholas Boles: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, as it is what I think is known as a soft ball, because this Government have of course done a great deal more than previous Governments to pull institutional investment into this sector. We have already identified in excess of £10 billion of equity that people are looking to invest in this sector. We have a £1 billion Build to Rent fund. We have £3 billion of guarantees for the private rented sector. The precise point here is that we will have some chance of pulling institutional long-term investment into higher-quality rental property if such investors have confidence that the rules of that market are not going to suddenly change and they are not going to suddenly find themselves being faced with unpredictable costs and capped rents. That is how we get institutional investment in, and it is precisely the opposite of what the Labour party is proposing.

Graham Jones: The Minister is making a fundamental point: he is saying that rents are indexed to capital values. Is that correct?

Nicholas Boles: I am not saying anything as complicated as that. I am a bearer of a fairly simple brain, and I am simply saying that if someone cannot control their costs and is faced with capped or controlled revenues, that is a very risky environment and there are lots of other places where they can put their money, and we will see rental property returning to how it was until the housing legislation was changed: falling as a contributor to our economy.

Andrew Love: The Minister said one of the factors that will give confidence to institutional investors is longer-term tenancies. However, the other issue, which he has not touched on at all, is of course reputational damage because of the difficult end of the rental market constantly receiving lots of very bad publicity. If he wishes to attract institutional investors, would it not be sensible to do more to deal with that reputational issue?

Nicholas Boles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that, as in any industry, this industry will want to drive out the cowboys because they undermine the industry and people’s confidence in it, but we do not do that by
	imposing blanket controls that apply to both good providers and those few who upset the whole thing for everybody else.

Andy Slaughter: Is the Minister’s problem not that he sees this entirely from the landlord’s point of view and does not see the power relationship here? The reality for tenants in my constituency is that they are paying a fortune, often for very substandard properties, and cannot complain because they might be evicted. Is not the game given away by the Minister’s colleague the Housing Minister telling landlords “Well, if somebody’s on benefit, just evict them.”? Does the Minister support that?

Nicholas Boles: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman says, but then I never do. The fact is that the interests of his constituents who are tenants are best served by having more investment coming in, to produce rental property of a higher quality supplied by professional companies that they then will be able to access.
	We have to ask ourselves why the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East has come to the House with this policy today. The first reason is that her boss, the Leader of the Opposition, wants to be seen as the man who will stand up to business and impose his will on the unruly forces of the market. He is not much interested in housing, and, lucky fellow that he is, it is a very long time since he needed to find a flat to rent, so he does not much care if the policy will work; he just wants a policy that will beef up his brand as the scourge of British business, and on that at least he has definitely succeeded.
	The other reason lies deep in the DNA of the Labour movement. It is addicted to compulsion and control. From Douglas Jay, who thought that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, to Nye Bevan, who wanted to know if a bedpan dropped in a ward in Tredegar, to Ed Miliband, who wants to decide how much rent should be charged on every property in the country in three years’ time, the instinct is the same: to make people do the things they want them do in the way they want them to do it. So they ignored the fact that, without Government intervention, average tenancy lengths have increased by 6% to reach an average of more than 21 months—without Government legislation. They block their ears to the majority of young people—still a very important group of tenants—who say that they value the flexibility of existing tenancies and do not want to be bound up in a three-year agreement. They draw a veil over the awkward truth that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East claimed was helping her to devise a benchmark for her rent controls, is doing no such thing and opposes the policy.
	Last year, the Communities and Local Government Committee, chaired by the ever-wise hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is unfortunately not with us today, conducted a review into the private rented sector. It concluded that it did not
	“support rent control which would serve only to reduce investment in the sector at a time when it is most needed. We agree that the most effective way to make rents more affordable would be to increase supply, particularly in those areas where demand is highest.”
	Perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee is not in the House today because he did not want to face the embarrassment of disagreeing so intensely with his own party’s Front Benchers. The approach that the Committee suggests is the right one.

Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he warned my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that he would be mentioned in this debate?

Mr Speaker: It is the normal courtesy so to notify. A simple nod of the head will suffice if the Minister did notify the hon. Gentleman.

Nicholas Boles: I entirely apologise—I did not know that that was the practice, and I should have. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman would be here because he is the Chair of the relevant Select Committee. I will write to him straight after the debate to apologise for having referred to him without warning him.

John Stevenson: I bring to the House’s attention my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is the Minister surprised that the Opposition’s motion makes no reference to the supply of housing, an increase in which would transform the market for all sectors—privately owned, social housing and private rented?

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he brought that insight to the Select Committee review that led it to draw such intelligent conclusions. The Select Committee’s approach is the right one. It is the core of the Government’s strategy, and I would even go so far as to call it a central plank in our long-term economic plan. I therefore urge Members to oppose the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Colleagues will have noted that, on account of the level interest, there is an 8-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Frank Dobson: We last debated private rents on 24 March, and at that time I and other London Members pointed out that ordinary Londoners were being priced out of the city. I do not mean the City where they play with money; I mean the great London conurbation. That is because there has been a total failure in the housing market, be it buying or renting. Increasingly, ordinary people can no longer afford either to buy or to rent in London, and the situation is still changing for the worse. Prices and rents are still going up and, if the Evening Standard is to be believed, according to a recent headline rents in London are rising eight times faster than wages. Rents are continuing to outstrip wages.

Meg Hillier: Nowhere is that truer than in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch, where private rents are out of the reach of many people, who are unable to live in the borough. Does my right hon.
	Friend agree that the resulting higher population churn causes real damage to the strength of our local communities?

Frank Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	Things generally have been getting worse, but there has been one enormous change for the better: the Labour party’s commitment to regulating rents and providing security of tenure in a way not proposed for a very long time. I am delighted to welcome this development, although personally I would go rather further. However, it is the right thing to do, it is popular, certainly with Londoners, and it is an approach that works.
	We had the “less than GCSE” economics lecture a few minutes ago on the merits of encouraging investment in the private sector, and how it would be damaged by regulation. That ignores all the European evidence. Germany and Switzerland have a heavily regulated private sector, including rent regulation, and they have the highest proportion of people living in the private rented sector. They live, generally speaking, in rather good quality private sector flats and houses, certainly better than the average here. People in the Netherlands, where the first rent that anyone can charge is set, are better housed than most people in Britain. We simply cannot go on with the current situation—ruinously high rents—under this Lib Dem-Tory coalition.
	Last year, the average weekly rent in London was 51% of average weekly pay. It is now 55%, which is clearly ruinous for tenants.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the CityWest Homes letting arm of Westminster Council recently advertised an ex-council flat for sale at £650,000, but in doing so mentioned that it has just been let for £500 a week? Does he think that tells us everything that has gone wrong with the central London letting market?

Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend—my good, long-term and hon. Friend—makes an excellent point, as usual.
	I recently picked up a brochure advertising new apartments to rent in Bloomsbury. A two-bedroom flat costs £560 a week. That is £26,880 a year. Who can afford that sort of rent? A Russian oligarch, I am sure—even perhaps a Ukrainian oligarch—and perhaps a banker who spends their time advising tax swindlers on how to avoid paying more tax by investing in Luxembourg; and here I do not mention Mr Juncker. However, nobody who is contributing to the local community can afford £26,000 a year—no shopkeeper; no bus driver; no teacher; no research scientist at the shortly to open Francis Crick Institute; no nurse. As I said in my last speech on this issue, no new consultant surgeon at Great Ormond Street hospital or University College hospital can afford that sort of rent. As a new consultant, they get, at most, about £80,000 a year. After taking off their tax and national insurance, that leaves £40,000 a year. So somebody on £40,000 a year would have to pay £26,000 a year for a two-bedroom flat.
	It is a ludicrous situation that is bad for tenants, obviously. People come into London, or go to their local hospital, relying on Great Ormond street or University college hospital to get the finest treatment and care in the land, but the people providing it cannot afford to live near those great hospitals. The situation is intolerable.
	But it is not just bad for the local community and tenants; it is ludicrously bad for taxpayers, because private sector landlords are getting a public subsidy from the taxpayer of between £9 billion and £10 billion every year—that is what is paid out in housing benefit. It does not stay in the handbags and wallets of the tenants; it goes to the landlords. The last time I checked, agriculture was getting a subsidy of only £6 billion a year, but apparently it is okay for the private rented sector to get a £9 billion a year subsidy.
	The Mayor of London now says that when he wants an element of “social housing” in a new development, it will count as such if it is going to be asking up to 80% of market rents. Most people cannot afford to pay that, so his programme does nothing for badly off Londoners. What we need to do is build more homes—homes that ordinary people can afford. We have the ludicrous situation where people who are homeless and the responsibility of the local authority cannot be re-housed by the local authority, because it does not have enough flats and homes, and so it places them in the private sector, where they have no security of tenure and pay ludicrously high rents, which are being met largely by the taxpayer. No economic theory can possibly justify anything as daft as that. The worst thing someone can say about something these days is that it is daft, and that situation is extremely daft.
	Clearly, we need to put more effort into getting new flats and houses built. I have a madcap scheme to create more land in London by decking over all the deep railway cuttings and either building housing on them or using them as green spaces in order to justify building higher-density housing next to them. That is the only way in which we will create more land in the area, and we need revolutionary ideas such as that. In the end, however, we have to get a grip on house prices and private rents. Unless we do that, we are ruining—

Andy Slaughter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: I have given way twice and I ought to sit down before my eight minutes are up.

Mark Prisk: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
	Let me start by saying that I strongly believe in both a bigger and better private rented sector. As with the housing market as a whole, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), we need more homes in this sector and more homes to rent. That means securing substantial private investment into the sector, for the long term. As the Select Committee found, increasing supply is good not only for the market as a whole, but for tenants, as it gives them, finally, the opportunity to choose and that helps us to make sure that bad and mediocre landlords raise their game. Therefore, the argument for increasing supply is not just an economic one; it is a social argument on behalf of the existing tenants in the marketplace. That is why the Government were right in taking on and fully implementing the findings of the Montague report.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked what the Government were doing to get institutional investors in, so I should mention the £1 billion Build to Rent fund and the up to
	£11 billion in housing guarantees. They are crucial, not just because they involve large sums, but because they are long-term commitments to a sector that needs them. May I say to my former colleagues on the Front Bench that we could speed up the due diligence process on the Build to Rent fund? I have raised the issue with Ministers before, but if we are to get these homes under construction, we might speed up that process. I am sure that the Minister replying to this debate will want to set out where the Homes and Communities Agency has got to on this, because I know he shares my ambition to get those homes under way.
	The Labour party is in danger of cutting off the very investment it claims it wants. The hopeless muddle—I am being polite—around the announcements from its leader’s office on rents caused many investors real alarm. There are responsible long-term institutional investors who want to invest and provide the quality of home and the longer leases that the Labour party has rightly been calling for, but by muddling rent indexation with rent controls and by part of its leadership playing to the gallery, the Labour party has left a large question mark over its housing policy. If, heaven forfend, we were to find next May that we had a Labour Government, that party and its Front-Bench team—I think they know this, given their chuntering—would need to clear up the muddle or they simply would not get the necessary investment and therefore the necessary supply.
	Labour’s policy for a national register of landlords is just a gimmick. As we have seen in Scotland, such a policy would have little, if any, impact on standards, but we would see a rise in rents. The Labour Government checked what a national register would cost: it would be £300 million. Who would pay it? Would it be the landlords? No, it would be the tenants.

Graham Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman understand how long it takes local authorities, including his, to find out who a private landlord is and how much money would be saved by knowing who the landlord was through a register?

Mark Prisk: There is a case for registers in individual local authorities but, as the Select Committee agreed, a national register applied on a rigid basis is not the answer.
	On standards in the sector as a whole, there is a case for a more professional rented sector. As several hon. Members have said, a minority of landlords and letting agents provide what is, at best, a shoddy service; in some cases, they flout the law and in others they have a wanton disregard for tenants’ safety. More can be done, and I encourage the Minister to focus on houses in multiple occupation. That subsector is the source of some of the worst practices, as hon. Members may know from their constituents, and often people on the lowest incomes and students are caught in it. We have legal powers in place to deal with this, but perhaps a little elbow grease from Ministers, a little Whitehall direction, and a little support and encouragement from local councils could make a real difference. Let me highlight one aspect of this issue. We need to look not just at the urban, larger HMOs in places such as Headingley
	in Leeds, but at some of the smaller HMOs—the two-storey houses. I am talking about the ones where, as I have discovered in the fens, HMOs are serving seasonal workers and are very often the source of dreadful practices and wider criminality.
	On the letting agents issue, which the Opposition have flagged up in their motion, I am proud that it is this Government who are giving tenants proper powers of redress. The ombudsman scheme, backed by a clear code of practice, is long overdue and it will enable us to start to drive up standards of service. Let me remind the House that when in government the Labour party spoke against and voted against those redress measures for tenants. This House needs to remind not only itself but tenants whom we serve that that is where the Labour party stood for 13 years—it refused to support additional redress for tenants—and the party should be ashamed of that record.
	Labour’s proposals on banning fees are well intentioned, because we have seen some dreadful practices, but the measures do not deal with the root cause of the practice among letting agents; what they would do is help to tackle one symptom. As questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) highlighted, Labour’s proposals contain nothing to prevent agents from then charging the landlords instead, which will lead to higher rents. So, by the back door, a well-intentioned piece of legislation would lead to an unintended consequence that costs tenants more. It is a very familiar story with the Labour party. What we need is a sector-wide agreement, one that sets higher standards for the quality of the homes provided, the type of leases offered and the level of customer service that tenants can expect. That is the way forward. We want a comprehensive approach and not a quick fix.
	We have a great opportunity to put in place permanently a genuine and stable private rented market. For too long, this House has tended to divide blue and red on the issue of tenure. It is, “Home ownership is perfect” or “Social housing is perfect.” We need to move on and recognise that we need more homes to rent, more subsidised homes to rent and more homes to own. Unless we focus on supply and play the game in terms of ensuring that the whole market works, we will fail. A modern economy needs a dynamic, open and competitive private rented sector, and it needs tenants who can rely on what is a professional standard. It should be a market in which the customer, and not the provider, leads.
	We are, as a Government, making good progress. The policy direction is right, but I say to Members on both Front Benches that there is more that can be done.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just before I bring in the next speaker, may I say that if a Member is declaring an interest in the subject, they should say what the relevant interest is rather than saying it just in passing? I say that to help Members in the future.

Alan Whitehead: We have heard today about London, but, along with Brighton, Southampton is the rented homes capital of the south. Something like half of the homes in the city are rented. There are some 25,000 private rented properties in Southampton—about a quarter of all properties in the
	city—50% of which are homes in multiple occupation. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) mentioned HMOs in his contribution a moment ago, but I have to say that the first thing this Government did when they came to power in 2010 was to remove the regulations that the previous Government had put in place. Those regulations would have enabled that sector to be better regulated and organised. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports my call for those regulations to be restored as soon as possible to ensure better regulation of the HMO sector, certainly in Southampton and across the rest of the country.
	Private rented properties in Southampton are in the province of landlords with not just one or two properties, but hundreds of properties across the city. In my constituency surgeries, I regularly hear about the problems that arise from the sheer size of this sector. Families might have taken out a lease on a house, settled their kids in local schools, raised the often substantial deposit and tried to settle down only to be turfed out unexpectedly at the end of a six-month lease period. It might not necessarily be in the first six months, but later when they thought they were secure in that property. What are they going to do? Where will they go? They cannot get instant council points to rent in the public sector. Do they rip their children out of the schools and start somewhere else? Will they even get back their deposit, which they have often borrowed, to allow them to start again?
	Single renters also come to see me. They are often faced with poor quality rooms in those homes in multiple occupation. They have to deal with letting agencies that sometimes just rip them off, loading charges on them so that they can squeeze out more money at that vulnerable point when the person is trying to obtain a rental. I am talking about people with very little or no recourse to protect themselves.
	Just as is the case nationally, the problems in Southampton come from a minority of landlords and letting agencies. Many landlords are first class and provide a secure and decent home for tenants, and many agencies really look after the people who come to them for lets. The point is that the nature of the rented market at the moment, couched as it is in insecurity and the possibility that rip-offs and unreasonable behaviour by landlords and agencies towards their tenants will generally go unchallenged, means that there is always the fear among renters that that will happen to them. Sometimes it does quite unexpectedly, and that is often when I see them at my constituency surgery. It is fair to say that there is widespread fear of the insecurity in the private rented sector in Southampton. It does not matter that it is only a minority of landlords and letting agencies that feed that fear.
	We need to reform the rented market to provide greater clarity and security for those who rent. Renters need to know what they can expect in their letting and how they can live subsequent to a letting being achieved. I understand that Southampton’s housing statistics will not change, but we need to see a change in the way that renters gain and keep their tenancies. We want proper regulation of letting agencies and deposits and three-year security if needed, with flexibility for shorter lengths. That would make an incalculable difference to those people who live in the rented sector in Southampton.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why it would be incalculable is that Southampton, like Slough, has very full schools, and for many parents, the anxiety of moving a long way away from their children’s school completely destroys their sense of security and their family life?

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend could almost have been on my shoulder during my constituency surgeries. I have heard from parents who have been forced to move homes across the city and to take two or three children to different schools. Through no fault of their own, they face disruption to their lives, and it is absolutely corrosive to family life.
	Let me explain why I am so disappointed today. Last October, the Department for Communities and Local Government said that it would support longer-term tenancies with predictable rents. It said:
	“Tenants will be able to request longer tenancies that provide stability for their families, avoid hidden fees when renting a home and demand a fair deal from their landlords and letting agencies.”
	I had thought that that was about changing the market for the better, but what we hear today is that there is a series of proposals in the pipeline that will simply persuade good landlords to be a little better and good letting agencies to be a little kinder. The proposals will make no difference to those agencies that are beyond the pale when it comes to voluntary arrangements or to those landlords who simply do not play by the rules, so business as usual will continue.
	Renters in Southampton also need to know that their homes will be of a decent standard. They do not want to be faced with massive fuel bills or leaky, draughty homes. All too often in constituency surgeries, I hear about those who sign up for a lease and then find out that their room or their home is not remotely what they thought it would be. This is yet another area where the Government started down the road of good intention and then stopped. The Energy Act 2011—the last Energy Act but one—stipulated that all properties to be rented from 2018 onwards should be above code F and G, which would ensure that they could be let only if they were reasonably warm and secure. However, such a measure requires secondary legislation, and three years after that legislation was passed, no regulations have been laid.
	I have it on good authority that the DCLG is blocking the laying of those regulations. As they have to be laid by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, DCLG is saying that it would be too bureaucratic and costly to implement the legislation. Recent research has shown that landlords across the country would have to spend only about £1,500 to update their properties to meet that standard. If that information is correct, it is shocking. There needs to be a basic understanding that if someone rents a home it will be of good quality, the tenant will be secure in it and the transaction between landlord and tenant will be a fair deal. All the cards are stacked against tenants, and regulation is needed to make sure that the deal is fair. If DCLG is preventing the implementation of legislation that could make sure that homes were of a decent standard, it should get its act together and reverse the decision. I should like to hear from the Minister this afternoon that that is indeed what the Department will do.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). This is an important issue nationally and in my constituency. We have a huge number of people renting, and that is reflected across the country. For the first time there are more people in the private rented sector than the social rented sector, and there are still too many problems in the private rented sector. It is incredibly expensive, in many cases exploitative and in some cases unsafe.
	Some people choose to rent because it suits their lifestyle, and that is something that we should allow and support. Others have to rent because they simply cannot find the deposit for a mortgage. The rented sector is now not much easier to get into than property ownership. I have been contacted during the debate by someone whose fees to rent a new, not particularly large, property come to £3,700 cash upfront. That is not atypical. It is a significant amount of money for many people to find. Many agencies also impose exit charges. I have also been contacted by people who face having to pay a large amount of money simply to leave a property. People can find themselves trapped in inappropriate or inappropriately priced facilities.
	Many people have a fantastic experience with landlords. There are many decent landlords out there who behave correctly. The challenge is those who do not, and I welcome the focus that is being placed on that problem. I was delighted to be at the launch of the Generation Rent manifesto and have a chance to speak about how important this is to me and my party and to talk about some of our party policy proposals.
	I introduced a private Member’s Bill in the previous parliamentary Session, which sadly went the way of most private Member’s Bills in this place. It dealt with many of the issues that we are talking about today such as the regulation of letting agents, accreditation of landlords, an ombudsman for the private sector, longer tenancies and getting rid of above-cost fees. There are disagreements about the details of how one could introduce such measures, but I hope that we can resolve them.
	The heart of the problem is often just that rents are too high. The fees and everything else are a problem, but the overall level of rents is just too high, because demand is so much greater than supply. I see this in my constituency. The solution has to be to fix the supply—to make more housing available. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Everyone knows the figures. Under the previous Government, the amount of social housing went down by 421,000. We need those houses; we have to build many more. Hardly any council houses are being built, which is a huge problem.
	Under the previous Government, council tenants were taxed and the money was taken away from Cambridge and could not be used to repair council houses or build anything new. The Liberal Democrat city council has worked to build many more houses. There has been a huge increase in the number of affordable homes and social homes, and existing council houses have been improved. There is also a scheme to build 2,000 more council houses—something I am incredibly proud of. Unfortunately, Labour took control of the city council at the most recent elections and one of its first acts was to scrap a scheme to improve council houses, many of
	which are not wheelchair accessible and not fit for purpose. I hope that it will not also scrap our scheme to build 2,000 council houses because people want to get on with that.

Greg Mulholland: Like my hon. Friend’s, my constituency has a large number of privately rented homes. Does he share my disappointment that Leeds city council is not using its new powers to borrow to buy existing housing stock, which would be a much quicker way of delivering new social homes? Surely all councils should be considering that.

Julian Huppert: I do not claim to be an expert on the situation in Leeds, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. They should be doing such things. In Cambridge we charged higher council tax for empty properties instead of giving a discount, as was previously the case. People paid less if they brought a property back into use. It is hard for people who are desperately looking for a house to know that there are empty properties around.
	I will not go through everything I spoke about in my speech on Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill. I went into more detail about the need for an ombudsman and for accreditation schemes. I prefer accreditation schemes to a national register because they would be cheaper, more effective and less bureaucratic and would avoid problems with letting property on a more occasional basis. We are agreed that we need a better system, and accreditation could work.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about houses in multiple occupation. There are some good examples of HMOs, but others are a serious problem and do not comply with basic health and safety regulations. They are an essential part of the housing mix in a place like Cambridge. We rely on them to house people, and they do a good job. Yet Labour councillors have proposed to cap the number of HMOs and change the definition to any house with three people from two unrelated groups. Driving younger people out of HMOs would simply slash the supply and make it even harder to house people in my constituency.

Lilian Greenwood: Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a university city with a great number of HMOs. Does he share my concern that the definition of HMO—that it has to have at least five rooms and more than three storeys—means that many properties are not licensed? The standards in many of them are very poor, and that is precisely why councils such as Nottingham City council have introduced additional licensing schemes that cover a wider range of HMOs than those covered by the basic legislation.

Julian Huppert: I am happy to accept that some places should be looked at more, and I am about to talk about some of the safety issues. The question is whether the council should introduce some sort of accreditation scheme, as Cambridge has, to make sure that HMOs are safe, or ban them. I hope that the hon. Lady would not suggest capping the number of HMOs in her constituency because she knows as well as I do the problems that that would cause for people looking for somewhere to live.
	We have problems with safety in the private rented sector. There are far too many unsafe properties. In particular, we have problems with electric fires. There
	are about 17,000 electric fires in the private rented sector and it seems bizarre that there are no requirements for them to be safety checked. We should introduce such a requirement; it is not excessive red tape, it is a simple safety measure.
	We want a fair deal for tenants. One group that we also need to consider is people who rent from private landlords and pay their rent using the local housing allowance. This was touched on earlier. There have been shocking cases of people being told that they cannot rent because they are on benefits. That simply should not be tolerated. We should not let landlords exclude a large number of people who need to find housing.
	We have a particular problem in Cambridge. The local housing allowance was introduced by the previous Government with broad rental market areas. One of the problems was that the rent levels for Cambridge were set by averaging places as far afield as Haverhill and Littleport, which are both much further out and have lower rents. It became impossible for anyone to find anything to rent in Cambridge on the LHA amount. My predecessor fought strongly against this when it was set up. It was highlighted by the Work and Pensions Committee, which emphasised the specific problems in Cambridge and Blackpool. Those problems were not fixed. The message that the Labour Government sent to people in Cambridge on benefits was, “You can’t afford to live in Cambridge. Go somewhere else.” They made Cambridge unaffordable and increased rents in places such as Littleport and Haverhill. It was a poor scheme and I am pleased that the Government have finally, after much effort, launched an independent review of the adequacy of LHA levels and increased the levels in Cambridge by 4%—well above inflation. That is a start.
	There is agreement across the House that we should make it easier for people to have longer tenancies. The stability is worth while. Some time ago in our policy paper, we in the Liberal Democrats proposed mini-leases, with new fixed-term leases of at least three years after a probationary period.

John Stevenson: rose—

Julian Huppert: I am sorry; I have given way twice so I am running short of time.
	I hope we can go forward and find alternatives, with greater agreement between landlords and tenants, so that people can turn their houses into homes.
	Another aspect that concerns me is the status of guarantors. When they rent, many people are told to find a guarantor who will apparently underwrite the cost of their rent. That is discriminatory for people who do not have somebody who has sufficient income to provide such a guarantee. I am aware of cases in Cambridge where people whose parents live in Scotland have been told, rather bizarrely, that a guarantee from somebody in Scotland is not acceptable because it may not be legally binding. I hope the Minister can clarify that that is not the case. There are a number of students from Scotland who should certainly be able to rent places in Cambridge.
	Letting agent fees are a serious issue and makes people’s blood boil. I agree with Shelter and many of the 9 million people who rent that fees are out of proportion. That is why I proposed ending any permission
	to charge above-cost fees. They should not be allowed. I was interested in the proposal from the Opposition, and I voted for an amendment, but for reasons that I do not understand, the Labour amendment specifically excluded any controls on fees that could be charged for credit checks. I hoped to press the shadow Minister on that. It is a great flaw in the Opposition’s proposal as it means that letting agents who do not wish to comply will charge vast amounts for a credit check and shift all the money on to that.

Emma Reynolds: rose—

Julian Huppert: I will take an intervention, but it must be quick.

Emma Reynolds: I shall be brief. I am sorry I did not take the intervention earlier. The tenant would pay up front, otherwise they might be able to walk away, but they would be refunded if they agreed to the tenancy.

Julian Huppert: That still seems to be a recipe for letting agents wilfully to turn people down on the basis of their credit checks, or to be very difficult in order to make money. That is the problem I have with that proposal. Letting fees should be limited and capped, but I am happy to talk further to the hon. Lady about that. I expect that 15 seconds is not quite long enough to resolve the disagreement on that.
	We should get rid of letting fees. Studies in Scotland by Shelter which have been mentioned found that the increases in rent that one might expect did not take place.
	Transparency, to which the Government are committed, is welcome. I support that. There is such an imbalance in power between the tenant and the landlord—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is up. I call John McDonnell.

John McDonnell: I almost apologise to the House for the fact that, in every housing debate, some of us who represent London constituencies seem to say the same thing. Like many London MPs and perhaps others, every week I have a family coming to see me, begging for a property. It is one of the most distressing experiences that we have in our role as Members, because all we can offer is sympathy. Lobbying and letters to the council elicit the standard response about the waiting times, the lack of housing supply and so on. As I mentioned, I find it really distressing and I do not know how the colleagues who run my constituency office cope with dealing with such families.

Debbie Abrahams: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is very distressing—not only the supply, but cases where people in precarious private sector rented accommodation are threatened with almost immediate eviction or a rent hike, which frequently happens in my constituency. The council—with much pushing from me—has introduced a licensing scheme to try to overcome this. What does my hon. Friend think of that as a way of resolving some of the problems?

John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving that advance. It is difficult in many other areas, where we do not have the co-operation of the local authority. I have started turning up at evictions now, to negotiate with estate agents and others and the bailiffs. As many hon. Members will know, that can be quite confrontational.
	I have lived and worked in my constituency and represented it in different forms for nearly 40 years. When I arrived there 40 years ago, if someone wanted a house, they would go to the council and there would be council housing. There was a council housing waiting list, but it was not that long. Most of those council houses were sold off. Ironically, a letter went out from Hillingdon council two weeks ago seeking to lease back the council properties that it sold 20 years ago, to rent those out to people. It is bizarre how the cycle turns.
	The other form of housing in my area was owner-occupation. There was little private rented accommodation at the time, but the level of wages was such that mortgages were available. Mortgages were also available through local authorities. The Greater London council a mortgage scheme with a relatively cheap rent. Now, unfortunately, even though my area has high levels of employment, the pay is such that people cannot afford owner-occupation. The average price of a property in my borough is £318,000, which is way out of the reach of people in my constituency on average pay—between £12,000 and £20,000. They are therefore forced into the private rented sector.
	The private rented sector has expanded, but insufficiently. In my constituency, the cost of a family property in the private sector ranges from £1,200 to £1,600, and in some instances up to £2,000, a month. That is simply unaffordable. Even if people overcome the challenge of getting into the private rented sector, they are faced, as we heard earlier, with discrimination against anyone on benefits being able to rent a property. There is ghettoisation going on, organised by the landlords and the agents—“That area or that property isn’t suitable for you because you’re on benefits.”
	People go through all the experiences about which I have expressed concern—having to find the money up front, the heavy charges imposed by the agents—and it forces some into penury. I have many constituents who go to payday loan agencies to borrow the money to try to get a roof over their heads.

Karen Buck: My hon. Friend is making a characteristically passionate speech. Does he share my concern that at the very time when the impact is being felt, as he describes, we are seeing a collapse in the provision of advice services, particularly for housing? This morning’s statistics on legal aid provision show, for example, that the number of housing cases for which legal aid was provided has fallen from 126,000 to 55,000, so at the time of greatest need, people are finding less advice and assistance available to them.

John McDonnell: I was going to come on to that, but let us deal with it now. Tenants are defenceless at present. They may well know their rights, but they are not able to exercise them. Because the law centre in my area is on a contract, it is limited in the work that it can do, and it is swamped. The citizens advice bureau is swamped continuously. There are lines of people on a
	Tuesday morning queuing up to go to the CAB to book their appointment. In my constituency we have moved to an open door policy so that people can come to the office at any time. All the agencies that I am aware of are swamped.
	Tenants cannot get into the system even to challenge what is going on. It is not just about getting access to a property; it is about defending themselves, once they are in that property, against abuse by landlords and threats of eviction. All this has resulted in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in my constituency going up. The figure was 30 in 2012; the latest figures I have from the beginning of 2014 show that there were well over 200 families in bed and breakfast. I thought that on a cross-party basis we had committed ourselves to ensuring that no family would be in bed and breakfast.
	The bed-and-breakfast establishments that I have been visiting are squalid. They are appalling. Because families are stuck in bed and breakfast for a long time, children are being brought up in squalid and often unsafe conditions.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the spiralling cost of rentals in London creates a problem for people in public sector occupations, such as firemen and teachers, being able to afford to live in London?

John McDonnell: Suitable accommodation is non-existent. Firefighters in the Hayes station were commuting from Devon and Cornwall. It is very difficult to find anyone in public service locally who can afford a property in the area.
	This means that the overcrowding in my constituency is appalling. In the 40 years that I have lived there, I have not seen it on such a scale before. People tell me it is as bad as it was after the second world war. We complain about kids being out on the streets and joining gangs, but overcrowding means that kids are forced out on to the streets, and they become incredibly vulnerable. Think about a child going home and having to do homework in the room where the other kids are having tea, or having their bedroom in the room where they have to do their homework either on their knees or on the bed. The social impact is horrendous.

Ian Mearns: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John McDonnell: I cannot give way any more. I apologise.
	There is also squalor in the private rented sector. In my constituency there are landlords, the majority of whom own one or two properties, who do not maintain them. This has been made worse by the economic recession. Walk down any street in my constituency and it will be clear from the standard of the properties and their maintenance which ones are the buy-to-lets. When the tenants complain, they are evicted. They have virtually no legal redress, because they cannot get into the courts; or they turn up at the citizens advice bureau or the law centre and it is difficult to get advice because they too are swamped. There is also an element of blacklisting of certain tenants who challenge particular landlords. The environmental health standards of some properties are appalling, yet obtaining enforcement by the council is
	difficult. I do not blame the local authority, because with staff cuts it is difficult to provide cover for the scale of the problem faced and the enforcement required.
	Houses in multiple occupation in my constituency have experienced all the health and safety risks, including fires and, unfortunately, some fatalities as well. There is a continuous churning process, with families in short-life accommodation, perhaps for 18 months or two years, being moved out. That disrupts the family, breaking down family relationships and undermining communities, and the long-term impact on children’s education and social relationships is devastating.
	The solution is a statement of the blindingly obvious: build more council houses. I was critical of the previous Government. We had debates such as this, but I think that the Labour party has learned the lesson that we now need to invest in social housing on a scale that we have not done in the last 20, 30 or 40 years. We need a massive council housing programme. Councils should be encouraged compulsorily to purchase empty land. We cannot wait around any longer while we negotiate with developers. The crisis is too large. In an area of desperate housing need, we still have empty properties. Homes are standing empty. There are 700,000 empty properties in this country, 300,000 of them long-term, beyond six months. We should be encouraging councils to use their compulsory purchase powers to take over those properties, and put homeless families in them.
	I support everything in the motion, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, it will have limited effect, at least in my area. What we need are rent controls. We are accused of Chavezism, but I am quite proud of that. I am a Bolivarian. The only thing that would work in my area is control of rents, because at least in that way we would get back some form of affordable housing. If it is not the same in other areas, let us devolve the ability and the power to local authorities to determine in their area whether they want the power to control rents and at what level they should be set. That would at least give hope to families in my community that they might have a decent roof over their heads for their children.

Jackie Doyle-Price: At the heart of this debate is a chronic under-supply of housing, because for successive decades there simply have not been enough houses built of all types of tenure. That is the challenge that we have to face. It is not about singling out private landlords, although it is in the private rented sector that the consequences of the failure to tackle under-supply are to be seen. We also need to make sure that we are building more houses to buy and for social landlords to let, and that we continue to allow the expansion of the private rented sector.
	There is no doubt that there are rogue landlords out there who are exploiting tenants, but there are also many good, decent landlords. Most landlords want long-term tenants in their properties. They want people who will treat their properties as their homes and look after them. It is simply not the case that an army of small landlords is engineering this churn.
	There are also a number of reluctant landlords, particularly in constituencies such as mine. We have all talked about the challenges of affordability, particularly
	for first-time buyers, so we have lots of people out there who are letting a room so that they can use the income to get on the housing ladder. Most of them would prefer to have their home to themselves, but it is the means for them to acquire a home. Those people need to be encouraged. They do not need a wealth of bureaucracy that stops them being good landlords. Equally, as a result of the economic challenges of recent years, we have seen a lot of turbulence in the housing market. We also see many family breakdowns, so people often sit on properties that they cannot afford to liberate to sell, for one reason or another, and they want the long-term security of long-term tenants. We should not be making it difficult for them.
	I have been struck by the comments made by Members representing London where, again, the problems of under-supply are particularly acute. There are people who are taking advantage of that, and some letting agents also play the system and encourage churn in their properties: because every time they find a new tenant, they get a letting fee. I have witnessed that practice being encouraged in my constituency, although people would rather keep a tenant for as long as possible. However, when many people are entering the field, owners are always encouraged, with the promise of a higher rent, to change tenants. There is a lot to be said for educating the public about some of these bad practices so that they know how to avoid them. I take the view that educating the public is perhaps the best way in which to get higher standards generally. Regulations are usually a pretty poor tool because, as we have heard, they are often not enforced. We have heard about councils’ failure to take enforcement action against rogue landlords. The best thing we can do is ensure that all tenants know their rights and what they can expect from their landlords.
	We have heard a lot in this debate about security of tenure, and rather less about the quality of some of our private rented properties, which is my concern today. The quality of one’s living accommodation can be good or bad for one’s health. We have talked about some properties being poorly maintained, but poorly maintained rented properties are not the preserve of the private rented sector. In my constituency, the worst properties are those owned by the council.

Ian Mearns: Shocking.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is shocking that Thurrock council is letting down its tenants.

Graham Jones: Surely the hon. Lady should be doing something about that. There is a decent home standard for socially rented properties, and they should be brought up to that standard. The private rented sector, of course, has no quality conditions laid on it.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am not the local council, but if I were, I would be doing something about it. Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples. A row of four terraced houses in Tilbury is subsiding. One of the tenants has been on the waiting list to be rehoused for nine years. The council is still putting people in those properties. There is a flat from which someone was rehoused because it was riddled with damp, only for a new tenant to come to me two months later about the same property because it had not been treated. The
	post-1940 housing stock in my constituency has poorly installed central heating and double glazing units, which have led to real problems of decay. Yes, the previous Government did introduce a decent housing initiative, but it is useless if councils do not take advantage of it. I am doing my best to tell the council what its obligations are to its tenants. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could do the same. It might listen to him as it is a Labour council.
	The real point is that some tenants suffer seriously life-threatening illnesses. Where properties are infected with damp and mould, which happens in poorly ventilated properties with cheap double-glazing, we see a rise in illnesses such as asthma. I also want to mention an illness that many hon. Members may not have heard of, aspergillus. Where tenants inhale mould in infected properties, the mould can start to invade their lungs. That condition can be terminal, and I am sorry to advise the House that in my constituency I have a number of cases of people with aspergillus, contracted from the houses in which they live. One lady who suffered from respiratory failure was not allowed home by hospital staff because they recognised that it was her living environment that was killing her—and, yes, that was a council house. We must all be vigilant and remind councils of their obligations in this regard.
	I very much welcome the efforts made by Government to educate tenants about their rights, and we must do more, because it is the voice of the consumer that will make landlords of all types deliver on their obligations. We can do a lot more in this place to highlight good and bad practice, and we should name and shame the particularly bad cases. While there are powers for councils to take action against rogue landlords, the real weakness in the current system is that we cannot make them do so. I say to the Minister that we really need to look at this.
	We can take action to remind private landlords of their obligations to their tenants and remind tenants of what they can expect from their landlords, but the real hole in the system is the obligations of council landlords to their tenants and how we force them to act. We need to look at toughening up the powers of the ombudsman or developing a charter so that we can tell tenants what they can expect from their council landlords. However, let us not pretend, as Labour Members do, that the problem with our housing is always rogue private landlords; it is much worse than that. Our biggest problem is a failure to invest adequately in supply, and there is a serious problem with the quality of a lot of our housing stock. We should stop playing politics and actually get some houses built.

Diana Johnson: In Hull, about 23,000 families—one in five of all local households—rent privately, and this figure has risen over the past decade. Across my constituency, families who rent privately regularly report concerns about the instability of short-term lets and the high charges imposed by under-regulated letting agents. I therefore fully support the motion.
	First, I want to draw attention to the problems faced by students living in Hull who rent in the private sector. Secondly, I will highlight a particular constituency case
	regarding the failure of landlords who do not maintain their properties and thereby blight local communities. Students in Hull who do not live in university-owned accommodation end up relying on the private rented sector. Most student housing in Hull is provided through seven big companies that act both as landlords and letting agents. They own some of their own housing and provide it directly, but also act as letting agents for smaller landlords’ properties. In Hull, as in many other university cities, student unions have raised concerns about these kinds of letting agencies, which often mount very effective marketing campaigns targeting students. In Hull, many of their offices are situated very near to the university, so most students go straight to them.
	Most of these letting agencies are not accredited. Of the seven I mentioned, just one, which is a smaller company, advertises membership of the Association of Residential Letting Agents on its website, and just one—the same one—is signed up to the property ombudsman’s code of practice for residential letting agents. The rest are not listed on their websites as being thus accredited. When my office rang to try to confirm their membership of these bodies, they were unable to comment. This shows that self-regulation is not working terribly well. I welcome the DCLG’s moves towards a redress scheme, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister what representations have been received from students and universities about its use as regards student letting agencies. What good is a redress scheme if tenants do not know about it in the first place?
	Many of these agents charge students up-front, non-refundable administration fees ranging from £50 to £150 per person. Sometimes those fees are not advertised on their websites and people will be told about them only when they ask specific questions. Hull is by no means the worst for student up-front fees, but I still find it curious that it apparently costs some Hull letting agents up to three times more to administer exactly the same transaction than it costs others. The National Union of Students estimates that, nationally, over a third of students enter into some kind of debt to pay these tenancy set-up costs. One could suggest that the lack of longer-term tenancies and letting agents’ fees are interlinked, in that tenancies are so short, for students and non-students, because that can give letting agents more in fees. Many Hull students have said that they would like to enter into longer-term contracts with landlords while they are studying—that would also be far easier for the landlords to manage—but unfortunately this does not happen very often.
	Under the standard assured shorthold tenancy, tenants can generally pull out of the contract if they give a month’s notice, but I have heard from students in Hull that many students’ landlords write tougher clauses into their contracts whereby there is no provision to pull out with a month’s notice and students are often liable for all their rent for the full tenancy period, even if they drop out and lose their student finance. Because of aggressive marketing by landlords, some students end up signing contracts up to seven months in advance. That can cause problems as students’ circumstances can change. When the Government finally get round to publishing their model tenancy agreement, will it apply to student housing, and what will it say about the provision for ending tenancies?
	A lot has been said about substandard housing. In Hull, compared with other university cities, a high number of student properties continue to go unlet each year. One consequence of this is relatively low levels of investment in properties. A survey by Hull university student union of properties it inspects showed that nearly 40% had evidence of damp, mould or peeling paper. Those are just the properties that are signed up to the union scheme; nothing is said about the landlords who do not sign up. In the absence of proper regulation of the private rented sector, it is difficult for unions such as Hull’s to ensure good standards for all student properties.
	I must give credit to Hull’s union for having brought in two additional arms of regulation. I particularly commend its excellent president, Richard Brooks, for the work he has done in this area. The union has introduced its own letting agency to compete with the others—HUU Homes—and brought in a student-run accreditation scheme for substandard houses called HullSTARS. Unlike the previous accreditation scheme, which gave only generic good or bad ratings to 10% of homes, this student-run scheme gives five-star ratings to 100% of the homes it covers and allows students individually to review each property posted. However, these local measures can go only so far. We need to deal with the problem of unaccredited landlords and letting agents.
	Finally, I want to raise the case of Ms Daniels, an owner-occupier in my constituency who lives in a row of six properties owned by private landlords. Some of the properties hold seven-plus tenants, and they generate a lot of waste. Rubbish and food waste is often left outside the property when the tenants leave. This means that the street looks untidy, and it encourages fly-tipping and attracts vermin. As the properties are registered with the council as family homes, not as HMOs, the council has very little room for manoeuvre in dealing with them. Ms Daniels, in the spirit of wanting to keep the community looking as nice as possible, takes it upon herself to put out wheelie bins. She told me recently that she had a sit-in in one of the refuse collecting vans to ask the refuse collectors to take some action to remove all the rubbish. The council tells her that it can give the landlords 42 days to remove the rubbish but there is nothing further it can do. Some of these landlords own hundreds of properties but do not live in the city and do not care about them. They have no incentive to keep them clean and tidy, and they are a blight on the local area. Will the Minister see what further action we need to take to make sure that landlords keep their properties in a fit and proper state in local communities?

John Stevenson: I remind the House of my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to start—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I mentioned earlier that Members should declare interests that are relevant to the debate, so we need to know the details.

John Stevenson: I am a landlord, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I will start with two general points on housing policy. First, the United Kingdom has three distinctive housing sectors: home ownership, social housing and the private rented sector. In many respects we have Government
	policies for each sector. I acknowledge that they are different, but they are often seen in isolation, rather than as part of an overall housing strategy with policies that help all three sectors and create greater consistency and overlap between them.
	Secondly, we have housing policies for the whole country. I accept that we need a national framework, but I believe that we need greater flexibility so that different parts of the country can adopt slightly different policies to reflect their particular circumstances. The reality is that we have many different local housing markets, and not just in the private rented sector, but in the social housing sector and, indeed, in home ownership. Compare my constituency of Carlisle with London, for example. Even within Cumbria, the lake district market is incredibly different from that of Carlisle. Prices in London and Carlisle are so different. The social housing requirements in Carlisle are very different from those of Manchester, and the same is true of the private rented sector.
	I will turn now to the private rented sector. The Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on the private rented sector states:
	“The market is a developing one which we need to help edge its way towards maturity. This requires a careful balancing act which does not upset the market developing naturally.”
	It is a balanced report that drew support from both sides of the House. It was endorsed by Opposition and Government Members. It recognised that the market is relatively young and effectively immature, but that it has been and is developing. It acknowledged the rapid growth there has been in the market and the creation of a large number of accidental landlords, which brings its own problems. I commend the report to the House. I am delighted that the Government’s response accepted many of its recommendations.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend and Select Committee colleague agree that when we were considering the evidence and constructing the report, we discussed in detail the suggestion that rent controls should be introduced, and our cross-party Committee agreed that they would be a disaster for that emerging market?

John Stevenson: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that that was the Committee’s conclusion. We recommended model tenancy agreements—I am delighted that the Government will be introducing them over the summer, after a consultation—a redress scheme and transparency in letting fees.
	Addressing the specific issues raised in the motion is remarkably easy. I believe that the Opposition are misguided in their approach to that market. In fact, their motion does not even mention the critical issue: the need for more housing of all types. It mentions stability and certainty, but there is actually a remarkable amount of certainty, combined with a large degree of flexibility. Leases can be for six months, which is the default position, but we often forget that they can be for any length thereafter. It could be five years, 10 years or 18 months; it depends on the relationship between the landlord and tenant and the requirements of both. Indeed, many tenants do not want a three-year tenancy. They might want six months because they are moving
	into an area to see whether it is the right place for them to live or because they are looking to buy a property or to rent long term.
	The same applies to the landlord. The accidental landlord might not want to grant a three-year tenancy. They might want a six-month tenancy, with a view to putting the property on the market afterwards. The existing arrangements create a great deal of flexibility. It is also interesting to note that a large number of tenancies are brought to an end by the tenant, not the landlord.

Ian Mearns: As a member of the Education Committee, I often hear head teachers and governors talk about churn, mobility and turbulence in their school populations. A big factor in that churn and turbulence is undoubtedly the existence of a great many short-term, six-month tenancies in the private rented sector, but they are used as a matter of course in many neighbourhoods.

John Stevenson: I accept that six-month tenancies are used as a matter of course, and that is a cultural issue that I will touch on in a minute.
	The English housing survey notes that the average length of residence for a tenant is 3.8 years and that 66% of tenants are in a property for more than a year. We have heard a lot about rapidly rising rents, but I must confess that I am slightly perplexed. Figures from the Office for National Statistics for the period 2005 to 2014 show that the consumer prices index has risen by 13.3% and rents have risen by 9.5%—12.5% in London. Indeed, tenants who remain in a property often see their rent increase more slowly. I will give a personal example. I mentioned in my declaration of interests that I am a landlord. I have rented out a property to the same tenant for over five years, and during that time the rent has never been increased. Yet the tenancy was not for three years; it has varied from six months initially to a year and then was renewed each year. With regard to letting agents, transparency is the key, not regulation. It is quite right that landlords will look to see their costs being met in a different way. It is transparency we need, not further regulation.
	Ultimately, what we want is a vibrant, flexible and competitive private rented sector with quality housing. Therefore, I remind the House of the Select Committee’s key conclusions. First, the present market is broadly working and will continue to develop. Yes, we need a cultural change on the length of tenancies. I think that having six-month tenancies is partly a habit developed by letting agents and landlords, but it has also been influenced by mortgagees, who are reluctant to see tenancies go beyond a year. Secondly, we clearly need much more housing of all types. Thirdly, to improve standards we need proper enforcement by local authorities of the existing laws. We need to allow the market to develop within the existing laws and the recent Government proposals. I believe that that, rather than further regulation and state interference, will lead to a successful private sector market.

Jack Dromey: Forty years ago, I was one of those who organised the occupation of Centre Point, which was then empty. It was a protest
	that caught the imagination. It dominated the headlines for several days. It was against the obscene combination of a housing crisis on the one hand, with rapidly rising homelessness and Rachmanism, and office block speculation by the likes of Harry Hyam on the other hand. We then saw some welcome changes under the 1974 Labour Government, who tackled office block speculation and introduced security of tenure. I never thought that 40 years on we would be debating the biggest housing crisis in a generation. It is a crisis that is deeply damaging. It dashes the hopes of millions of people, damages the life chances of a generation of children growing up and holds back our economy.
	What we now require is the utter determination necessary to make a great generational change. That is why Labour has put housing centre stage. We have done so for three reasons. First, millions of people desperately want to rent or buy a house they can afford. The gulf between supply and demand is massive and growing. I see it in the city I am proud to represent, where we need 80,000 homes to meet demand and where 33,000 are currently on the council housing waiting list. Secondly, history tells us that there has never been sustained economic recovery—after the depression, through the war and in every recession since—without a major programme of house building, both public and private. Thirdly, there is the impact of bad housing and instability on our country and our community. At its most chronic, in the private rented sector, bad housing harms health. Instability, for example, if someone has to move home frequently—those living in the private rented sector are 11 times more likely to have to move home than owner-occupiers—is damaging, including to the life prospects of kids at school.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is making a really important point. We are not talking about statistics; we are talking about the life chances of children being disrupted because the problems in the housing market are having a direct impact on their educational prospects. They are forced constantly to move schools because of the insecurity in housing tenure for their parents.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because the evidence shows that if a child under five has to move home three times, that will impact on their educational attainment at school.
	The wish of people to live in a house that is also their home is deeply rooted in the sense of aspiration and ambition in our country. It enables them to put down roots, contribute to their community and plan ahead, including where they send their kids to school, which is simply not possible for millions of people in the private rented sector.
	To clear up what Government Members have said, Labour’s focus is on homes of all tenure: homes to buy, including our ambitious objective of reaching 200,000 homes a year by 2020; homes to rent; a new generation of social homes; innovation in self-build, custom-build and co-operative build; and catering for an ageing society by helping people to downsize, rather than by using the obscene weapon of the bedroom tax, which will be one of this Government’s first casualties when our Government come to power next May. We also want to bring all homes up to standard, including those in the private rented sector, and to complete one
	of the Labour Government’s greatest achievements, the decent homes programme, which brought 1.6 million homes up to a decent standard, so transforming the lives of those who lived in them.
	The private rented sector is growing rapidly: it covers 9 million renters and 2 million children. In my constituency, 48% of the ward of Stockton Green is now in the private rented sector. The sector has an important role to play to meet housing need. Most landlords are good landlords, but—I repeat, but—the evidence is absolutely clear that there are problems of security and affordability, with typically 41% of average earnings being spent on rent. There are also problems of quality—35% do not meet the decent homes standard—and too many rogue landlords and letting agents. We have all seen evidence of that in our constituencies. For instance, one of my constituents, Cathleen, lived in appalling accommodation before finally, with the help of the council, getting her landlord to carry out some basic repairs, only for the landlord to then serve her notice to quit.
	The situation must change. We need a different vision of the private rented sector by 2020. It should be a sector of choice, more akin to the continental model, and one that enjoys a higher reputation, with flexibility and security in equal measure: flexibility for the students on one hand, and security for families who want to plan ahead, including where they send their kids to school, on the other.
	Crucially, the sector needs to attract investment big and small. My experience of institutional investors is that they are very positive about Labour’s vision of the private rented sector that we want to create. The sector needs to work not just for tenants, but for landlords: longer-term tenancies with a reliable tenant paying the rent make for a better business model, because churn costs not just the tenant, but the landlord as well.
	The sector needs to be no place for rogues. I pay tribute to Labour councils all over the country, particularly Newham council, that have vigorously pursued rogues, seeking to drive them out of the business. I remember going on a raid at 7 o’clock one morning with Sir Robin Wales: we saw accommodation the kind of which I did not believe existed in London.
	The shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), is absolutely right to say that we need to tackle the problems with letting agents. Most letting agents are reputable, but there are too many rogues. No letting agent should be able to charge tenants up-front fees—that should be for the landlord. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a sector characterised by greater stability and security.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that municipalisation of these rogues might be a way forward? In fact, we did that in the 1970s and it worked very well indeed.

Jack Dromey: Indeed. Some Labour councils have done precisely that, by using their compulsory purchase powers to renovate homes and transform the lives of those who live in them.
	The shadow Housing Minister is right about the need to bring all homes in the private rented sector up to a decent homes standard. She is also right to highlight the
	importance of a potential national register. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), whose contributions to debates on housing are usually thoughtful, pooh-pooh the notion of a register, because it would tell us who the landlords are; provide information on whether they pay their taxes, which is of benefit to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and communicate to landlords their rights, entitlements and obligations. If any landlord were found guilty of serious criminal behaviour, they could be deregistered, which would result in them not being able to operate as a landlord. A national register could make a significant contribution to what we are seeking to achieve.

Mark Prisk: I hate to recreate our old sparring moments, but I say to my former shadow Minister that the problem is that it is accreditation and standards that are needed. Registration—a set of names on a form—has not worked in Scotland, which has only got rid of less than half of 1% of agents after five years. It has not dealt with the rogues, but it has cost tenants more in rent.

Jack Dromey: A register would be a means to an end. It would not be sufficient in itself, but ultimately, this is about an effective approach to enforcement. I stress again that a register would be of benefit to good landlords because it would inform them of their rights and entitlements.
	In conclusion, in my former being in the union, I used to say that, for all the problems, nothing is impossible. The scale of the housing crisis in this country is absolutely immense, but so too is the scale of our ambition. As our leader said last September, and as the shadow Housing Minister has said so often since, it requires the kind of determination that characterised the 1945 Labour Government. The 2015 Labour Government will have exactly that determination—homes for all at a price they can afford.

Stephen McPartland: The positive thing about the debate so far is that Members on both sides of the House want to tackle the problem of a housing shortage and we all recognise that supply is one of the key issues in doing so. Until shorthold tenancies were introduced in the Housing Act 1988, there was almost no private rented sector in this country. In fact, rent controls contributed to the collapse in the private rented sector from more than 55% of households in 1939 to just 8% in the 1980s, and I believe the figure dropped to 7% in the early 1990s.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the private rented sector fell during that period, but so did the increase in the supply of social housing. The number of people on the social housing waiting list was not that significant in those days, so there was not exactly a surplus of tenants, but there was a much larger social rented sector.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but Library figures show that it has taken almost 30 years for the figure to increase to 16.5%. His point that there was no demand then but that, all of a sudden, there is now probably does not hold water.
	An estimated 89% of landlords are private individuals with one or two properties, which are, in effect, their pension funds. They are, in the main, responsible and proactive people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who will keep his tenant in place for as long as he pays the rent on time, as has happened for a number of years.

Ian Mearns: The hon. Gentleman has given the interesting statistic that 89% of landlords are private individuals, but they do not cover 89% of the market. Would he care to inform the House what proportion of the market the other 11% control?

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that I am not someone who has all the statistics at his fingertips, but I am very happy to discuss that matter with him once I have had the opportunity to google it.
	Moving swiftly on, the point I was trying to make is that a huge number of people in this country are among the 89% of landlords who are private individuals, and many of them have been encouraged to invest their family’s future and their family’s finances in what are, in effect, pensions. Those people are very important to our economy and their local communities, which we need to support. We should not attack them just because they have been able to purchase a property and give another family a home to live in. For me, those landlords often provide stability for their tenants. Landlords cannot afford to have any voids, because that might result in their losing their ability to repay their mortgage; many of them are buy-to-let landlords, whose numbers have risen—mostly under the previous Government—during the past 15 to 20 years.
	The problem with three-year tenancy agreements is that many families want flexibility, and as a result the reality is that such tenancies will never be standard. There has to be a balance between flexibility and security, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke about, but rogue landlords will provide flexibility by encouraging everybody to sign up for six months, while the 89% of landlords will provide security for three years, as do they already. For me, such agreements are not the answer, and the issue is not about regulation.
	In addition, particularly for the 89% with just one or two properties, landlords whose tenants are not paying the rent or are damaging the property can get possession of the property only at the end of a tenancy. Other forms of recourse are often incredibly expensive. What that boils down to is that somebody with a buy-to-let mortgage whose tenant just refuses to pay the rent for two or three months is more than likely to have their house repossessed. In effect, they will lose their pension for their family’s future. If somebody does not pay their rent for eight or nine months of a three-year tenancy, that will lead to huge legal bills and create huge problems, which is a balancing factor.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle made the point that tenancies are often ended by the tenant, rather than the landlord. Figures I have been given suggest that only 9% of tenancies in this country are ended by the landlord. Landlords have come to my
	constituency surgeries very disappointed and upset because they cannot get possession of a property where somebody is just sitting in it and refusing to pay rent to go to their mortgage. Stevenage borough council informs such tenants not to let themselves be evicted because they will make themselves intentionally homeless, so the council will not house them. As a result, landlords have to take such tenants to court and go through the whole repossession process, which families often cannot afford. People who own just one or two properties therefore have a huge problem, and protections against that problem should be built into the system. I make that point because, for a huge number of people in all our communities, three-year tenancies without such protections might cause a huge problem for their family’s future and finances.
	A ceiling on rent increases sounds attractive and is no doubt incredibly populist, but one little detail that I heard earlier is that rents might increase every year during the three years.

Emma Reynolds: Rents would not necessarily increase. There would not be indexation; the Secretary of State has talked about that. In some areas, such as mine in Wolverhampton, rents are pretty stable. The ceiling would apply only if rents were going up. There would be a ceiling on any rent increase, but there would not necessarily be a rent increase. There would be protections, as there are now, in three-year tenancies, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that many landlords with irresponsible tenants really struggle to get the tenants out and that those protections need to be strengthened.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her clarification. However, my issue is with rogue landlords because they will push for rent increases.
	The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said that
	“we do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases.”
	The Opposition will no doubt consult the RICS to discuss what flexibility to have on rent ceilings. The RICS does not want rent increases, but that is the organisation most likely to be consulted. For me, if interest rates are likely to rise because of the success of our long-term economic plan—we are now starting to see an economic recovery—landlords will want to ensure that they have some flexibility, because of potential interest rate rises and to protect their future finances. The RICS and other organisations will try to ensure that the band is as wide as possible, but if it was 10%, a rogue landlord could tell a tenant, “You’re tied into a three-year tenancy with me, and I am going to increase your rent by 10% over the next three years.” For me, the issue is about how we prevent rogue landlords from taking advantage of vulnerable people.
	We must tackle rogue landlords. The only way to do so is to increase supply and to enforce regulations. Hon. Members have spoken about additional regulation and legislation, but I have discovered that 100 Acts of Parliament and 400 regulations apply to private landlords at the moment. Those are huge numbers, and I am not sure that we need any more; we just need people to get out there and enforce current regulations.
	I am very proud about the over-supply provided by Stevenage borough council. For the first time in more than 25 years, it has started to build council houses as a
	result of this Government’s wonderful investment in the town. Under a Conservative-led coalition Government, we have 30 new council houses in a Labour area—the borough council has been Labour for many years—and I am delighted that we have been able to push for them. Thanks to the Conservative Government, we will have new council houses in Stevenage.
	In my view, letting agents’ fees must be transparent. I am delighted that the Government will force letting agents to display any charges they make on tenants on online forms and, if they have any, in their shops. I am concerned that if letting agents’ fees were abolished, the charges would be passed on in a new way, as a form of tenants tax. At the end of the day, rogue landlords will ensure that they get every penny they feel entitled to, so our vulnerable constituents will again be affected, unfortunately, if they have to pay such a tenants tax. Apparently, that has happened in Scotland, where rents have begun to rise a little.
	I want a vibrant rental sector, with quality housing, in which local people have faith. I am very lucky that the majority of private landlords in Stevenage are local people who are investing in our local community. Therefore, we do not have many issues, and I do not have many constituents coming to my surgery upset about private sector landlords. However, Stevenage borough council is a large public sector landlord, with more than 8,000 properties in my constituency, and I get a huge number of complaints about it.
	Hon. Members have talked about decent homes funding. Again, the coalition Government have provided most of the decent homes funding given to Stevenage borough council, which was very late coming to the show in improving council houses. It is increasing rents faster than anywhere else in the whole of Hertfordshire, which I find unacceptable, and it has the biggest number of evictions and eviction notices in my constituency and in Hertfordshire. It is not therefore possible to talk about the public sector as great and the private sector as bad; this is about getting a great deal for tenants, so that they can have somewhere to live and have flexibility and security.

Caroline Lucas: I very much welcome the fact that the Opposition have called this debate today. It is high time that those who form Generation Rent were given the high place on the political agenda that they have long asked for. I tabled an amendment because although the motion goes in exactly the right direction, I want a more ambitious response to the crisis and to the deep and growing unfairness and inequality faced by people in the private rented sector.
	There are 9 million people in the sector, and the figure is expanding because of 30 years of housing policy failure. People on low incomes and young families—and, indeed, people on average incomes—have no chance of getting on the housing ladder, and most have only a slim chance or none of getting a council house or of getting to the top of a housing association list.
	The cost of housing in my constituency is eye-watering. Prices have increased at an alarming rate, and a typical home in Brighton and Hove now costs about £350,000, if not more, which is about twice the British average. As
	a result, the private rented sector—about a third of homes—is about double the national average, and it is expanding. I frequently hear from constituents who are spending between 70% and 80% of their income on their rent, and many people have simply been forced out of the city altogether. Many of those constituents come to my surgeries in desperation as they struggle with housing costs and fuel poverty. Many are living in damp, leaky, poorly maintained homes.
	Generation Rent spans all ages and backgrounds. It includes the single mum from Hollingdean, who told me:
	“I am not sure what to do when I am qualified. I will be a nurse living in Brighton who can’t afford to live here. If we were able to get a council house this would change our lives.”
	It includes the family who are worried about taking their children out of Elm Grove primary school because of an unexpected rent increase of £50 a month, which means that they can no longer afford to live in their present home. It also includes the student whose friends have warned him about the “Brighton paint job”, where landlords or agents paint over the penetrating damp before viewings, then retain the deposit at the end of the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has not properly ventilated the property.
	Generation Rent also includes the young couple who felt enormous relief at finding somewhere to live, despite paying more than 70% of their income in rent, and then had to find an additional £480 in letting agents fees. To add insult to injury, on top of extremely high rents and large deposits there is the scandal of fees. These unwarranted fees reflect how the private rented sector is, in large part, out of control. Letting fees are a scandal; they are sometimes over £300, which is a huge amount to find on top of a deposit. That is why I agree that they should be banned.
	I do not agree with the argument that the fees would just be passed on to landlords who would pass them back to tenants in higher rents. Agents would not be able to get away with hiking up fees to landlords in the same way as they do with tenants, as landlords are in a more powerful position. The landlord would just go to a better agent who was not trying to rip them off, because they had a property for rent, which is in very high demand, in Brighton at least. Tenants do not have that choice because of the huge demand for properties.

Jim Cunningham: I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw the programme on benefits the other night. It showed families who could not afford to pay their private landlord and could not get council accommodation. They ended up living in temporary accommodation in caravans. Does she agree that that is a disgrace in this modern age?

Caroline Lucas: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I also want to add my support to the many other hon. Members who have talked about the scandal of agents not allowing people on benefits to rent properties. That is absolutely despicable.
	We need a national register of landlords so that we can better protect tenants. That would also be good for the landlords out there who are not ripping people off. There are good landlords, and their efforts are tainted by those rogue landlords who are using the housing crisis as a way to make a fast buck. A national register
	would also help us to implement the minimum energy efficiency standard for private rented homes, which is essential to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
	Hon. Members will be aware of early-day motion 95, which reminds the House that the Energy Act 2011 placed a duty on the Government to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard for the private rented sector by April 2018. The regulations have been significantly delayed, which is totally unacceptable and shows the lack of priority being given to this issue. Ministers must also ensure that the regulations are made clear and enforceable by specifying band E as the minimum standard in all cases and by keeping exemptions to an absolute minimum. People looking for somewhere to rent need to know who they can trust and to be guaranteed minimum standards to ensure that properties are of high quality, safe and efficient.
	It must be made easier for families and individuals to get secure longer-term five-year and 10-year tenancies. The norm of short-term contracts leaves private rented sector tenants without security in their homes, and at risk of eviction and unfair rent increases. That volatility is particularly harmful for families with children, who often have to move schools as a result. Shelter has done some excellent research in this area. Longer-term renting could work better for both renters and landlords, as the latter could reduce void periods and expensive re-letting costs. It really is high time that the Government took steps to ensure that people can get five-year stable rental contracts, if that is what they want.
	One local resident told me of her heartbreak at being given one month’s notice to leave the flat she had hoped to stay in for a few years, even though being given notice in that way was technically against the law. She had spent time planting strawberries in hanging baskets on the fire escape, re-grouting the old tiles in the bathroom and hanging pictures. She wanted that place to be her home, and I think she deserves better. That is why I have tabled an amendment to today’s motion to give good tenants the choice of a five-year stable rental contract as standard. Five years as standard is what Shelter and the campaign group Generation Rent are rightly calling for, and I share their view on that.
	One of the reasons why the private rented sector is expanding and rents are soaring is the decimation of our social housing stock through the right-to-buy programme. Enormous, unjustified discounts and the failure to replace the stock that was flogged off cheap have a large part to play in our current housing crisis. To begin to make a dent in our long-term housing crisis we must address the lack of affordable homes, too. One of the biggest cuts in Government funding during this Parliament has been the 60% cut in funds for social housing, which has pushed even more people into expensive, insecure places in the private rented sector.
	This is a problem caused by successive Governments, who have simply not built enough houses, particularly affordable ones. A recent House of Commons Library note shows a long-term steep decline in house building in England in the past 35 years. Nearly 307,000 homes were built across all tenures in England in 1969-1970, but the number fell to just over 107,000 in 2012-13. There was a minor increase in housing association building over that period, although it amounted to less
	than 15,000 dwellings. What is most striking is that the steepest decline was in the building of council houses, which fell from 135,000 to 1,360 over the same period.
	My amendment seeks to remedy this scandalous missed opportunity with a call to start building council homes again. Done well, council housing works. It gives affordability and security of tenure. In 1980, under the Thatcher right-to-buy legislation, council housing stock was decimated and we were left with the scandalous situation of landlords receiving huge pay-outs in housing benefit for properties that were sold off cheap at the taxpayers’ expense. I want a real central Government commitment to build council housing, so that individuals and families can stay in Brighton and Hove without being at the mercy of rip-off landlords, and so that they can put down roots and not be forced to move their children from school to school.
	We need fully to lift the cap on local authority borrowing to allow councils to build new council houses. Councils are bound by prudential borrowing rules anyway, so the cap is unnecessary; it is just stifling the building of local authority homes. This measure needs to be bolstered by direct capital investment to allow for a mass programme of sustainable, warm council housing. We urgently need a commitment from the Government to replace all affordable homes lost through right-to-buy policies. Such a commitment was another candidate for inclusion in the housing Bill that was so conspicuously absent from this Government’s programme, which is in large part sleepwalking us towards the general election.
	Updating our housing infrastructure and giving people a way out of the cripplingly expensive private rented sector could also be a win-win. No one is suggesting that that is a silver bullet, but if we lifted the restrictions and allowed councils to borrow to build homes, and if they started to build on the necessary scale, we could start to pull people out of housing emergency. We could stop the expensive and distressing knock-on problems that bad housing creates, while at the same time creating a major boost to the provision of skilled jobs.
	Generation Rent is getting bigger and being squeezed harder. That is why I support the call for smart rent controls, which would mean that rents could not increase by more than the rate of inflation. I am also calling in my amendment for a living rent commission. Excellent work has been done by the living wage commission, albeit not under the initiative of the Government. The Government need to follow that lead and do some work to determine what a living rent would really look like. We must have an official benchmark for fair rent levels and, to get that, we need major official but independent research into what a living rent would be and how it could be achieved. A commission would look at whether there were ways to bring rent levels into line with the basic cost of living, and take into account the impact on, for example, landlords’ ability to pay their mortgages.

Graham Jones: Is the hon. Lady also suggesting that we should look at stock condition?

Caroline Lucas: I am indeed suggesting that we should look at stock condition as well.
	A living rent commission could learn a lot from the living wage commission. It could set out how much a living rent might be, so that landlords could opt in, just as employers have opted into paying the living wage.
	More broadly, I would be interested to hear what other hon. Members thought about the need for a royal commission on housing, with a strong focus on the private rented sector. I do not advocate that lightly, and I know that royal commissions happen only rarely, but this is arguably an issue of such importance that such a move should be considered. Housing policy is central to health and well-being and to our economy. Sky-high rents are a barometer of housing policy failure, which is why we need a living rent commission.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Lucas: I am sorry, but no. Other people are waiting to speak.
	There is still time for Ministers to admit that they have got this badly wrong, and to act on solutions to our housing crisis that would help people trapped in the private rented sector, tackle health inequality and disadvantage, create skilled jobs and, crucially, provide stable tenancies at rents that people really can afford.

Angie Bray: It is important to recognise the opportunities that the private rental sector offers in terms of choice for people and of benefits to the work force. To be able to move to a city for a new job with no worries about finding somewhere to live is hugely attractive and allows people to experience living in different places without the commitment of buying a property. The fact that a third of private tenants in London have lived in their property for less than a year should not be seen as a uniformly negative thing. In my constituency, we see a great deal of churn, with young renters coming and going. They like the flexibility. Moving around different areas and sharing with friends and colleagues is an interesting and formative stage for many young professionals. Not everyone considers three-year tenancies to be either desirable or the norm. For others with different needs, more supply providing more choice and more competition is surely the right way forward.
	Of course there are cases of unscrupulous landlords, but there are ways of minimising the problem without wholesale state intervention in the market. The Mayor of London has introduced the London rental standard, aimed at accrediting landlords and bringing transparency to the market. Landlords with the accreditation will be more attractive to both renters and agents, and in a competitive market, the advantages of signing up to it are clear. Councils could, in some cases, do more to ensure that private landlords, to whom they pay housing benefit, do more to ensure their properties are maintained to a good standard.
	Estate agent fees can be unpopular, but the agents are operating in the free market and will be paid for their service. It is unrealistic to think that the costs would not simply be passed on by increasing rents if the one-off charges were scrapped. Someone has to pay them for their professional time spent doing the admin work. In any case, estate agents are starting to reduce fees in many cases in order to be competitive. Many landlords will acknowledge the speed with which the marketing undertaken by agents can fill their properties, and similarly, agents make finding a property remarkably straightforward for the renters. Agents can fulfil a useful purpose.
	The best solution to affordability of housing, whether rented or not, is to increase supply, as so many in the Chamber have said today.

Frank Dobson: In terms of fees paid, the hon. Lady surely cannot think it is right that some agents charge people £450 simply to change the name on an agreement, because one of the people sharing a flat has moved out and someone else has moved in.

Angie Bray: To my knowledge, in many cases, agents do considerably more than that. They check the credit details for people who are going to be renting the property, and there is often quite a lot of admin work involved in the work they have to do. As I say, I think they would expect to be paid for that.

Mark Prisk: On that point, I think sometimes Members of the House forget that we have consumer legislation with trading standards, which are able to challenge unreasonable charges and fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than passing many more laws, we ought to get the current laws enforced?

Angie Bray: Predictably, that is a very sensible point from my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the best solution to affordability of housing, whether rented or not, is to increase supply. That is happening in London, with 100,000 purpose-built affordable homes being built—5,000 for rent for each year across the two mayoral terms. However, we must not get into a situation where private landlords are in some way viewed as a necessary evil. The Opposition’s plans to flatten the market will simply mean it is less attractive to invest in property. Controlled rents in other capital cities point to how detrimental it can be for those seeking to rent. Properties are neglected and choice is limited. Waiting lists are long, and unrealistically high deposits can be needed simply to secure somewhere to live—I am thinking of places such as New York.
	Until the 1960s, the private rented sector took care of a substantial part of housing need in this country. As I mentioned earlier, it was an important part of the mobility required to seek work wherever it could be found. Yes, there were bad landlords, and names like Rachman loom large in that regard, but slum landlords such as him could have been dealt with more effectively by law enforcement.
	Instead, the Labour Governments of the ’60s decided to bear down on the private rental sector in general, starting a long decline in the number of private properties available to rent. I remember well coming down from university to London in the 1970s—I am showing my age here—and finding it quite difficult to get a room. I was not in a position to go on a waiting list for a council property and I certainly could not afford to buy my own. Since then, the private rental sector has picked up again, providing a great deal more flexibility. If Labour were to win power and put some of its proposals on the sector into practice, I greatly fear that we would again see a decline in the private rented sector, and less flexibility with fewer properties available.
	It is all very well to talk about controlling the private rental sector with increased regulation, but if we find there are very few properties available to be rented out,
	because the landlords have been disincentivised, those who need a property will suffer. How can that possibly be of benefit to anyone?

Lilian Greenwood: Millions of people across the country are struggling to cope in a sector that is clearly not fit for purpose, leaving tenants and responsible landlords fending for themselves in an unregulated lettings market. That experience is all too familiar to many people in Nottingham, which has a large and growing private rented sector. There are now more privately renting households in the city than there are households renting from the local authority or housing associations.
	In Nottingham, the growth in private renting has been seen across all age groups, but most markedly among the young. Over the past 10 years, home ownership among 16 to 34-year-olds has fallen significantly. Back in 2001, 39% of the city’s homeowners were in that age group, but by 2011 that had declined to 27%, and those figures exclude students. People renting privately in my constituency tell me that they desperately need security so that they can build their lives in one place, become part of a community and live without the threat of eviction if they make a complaint about conditions or the management of their home.
	In Nottingham, substantially fewer homes have been developed since this Government came to power, despite new affordable homes being built by our councils arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures, in the last three full years 630 homes have been built in Nottingham by a mixture of private and housing association builders. That compares with 1,520 in the preceding three years and 3,680 in the three years before that.
	Demand for housing in the city is increasing, but Ministers are doing nothing to address local supply, and the banks continue to withhold finance from the smaller construction companies that know the market and could make a huge difference. The Government seem to be passively reliant on developers to bring forward planning proposals, even in inappropriate locations, when too many brownfield sites lie empty. It beggars belief that for all the talk of localism, under this Government a developer is able to ride roughshod over the views of many hundreds of local residents in Wollaton and the local authority, who all oppose plans to build new houses on local allotments.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend made a very compelling point about the banks not lending to small and medium-sized builders. Does she share my concern that two thirds of homes used to be built by small and medium-sized builders, but that has declined to one third? That is at the heart of a chronic problem of capacity in the industry. If we are to build on the scale at which we intend to build—200,000 homes a year—their role will be key, and that includes the banks lending to them.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We do of course need to unlock the ability for small and medium-sized enterprises to get access to finance and to be building the houses that we want.
	Many of my constituents, particularly those under the age of 35, would love to buy their own home, but they simply cannot get a foot on the property ladder. Young people who manage to buy often do so only with help from their parents, but in cities such as mine most parents simply do not have the level of savings that would be needed to help their children in that way. The Government’s failure on housing means that an entire generation in Nottingham could be locked out of home ownership entirely, left to cope with the insecurity offered by the private rented sector and facing rents that are expected to soar by an average of 39% by 2020. The Opposition are clear: if the private rented sector continues to make up an ever-increasing proportion of the market, we must ensure that it is fit for purpose, provides good quality, affordable homes and offers tenants the security they so desperately need.

Frank Dobson: In a great university city such as Nottingham, large numbers of people are graduating with phenomenal debts because of the massive increase in fees, and in many cases they have very little chance of getting what might be described as a graduate job. That adds to their problems in raising the money either to rent or buy and provide services to the people of Nottingham.

Lilian Greenwood: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. One of the things that we would like to do in our city is ensure that more graduates stay in Nottingham and do graduate-level jobs, but their ability to buy a home is really important part of that offer. Ministers should come to Nottingham and see for themselves the misery that is being caused by the status quo before attacking Labour’s plans to take action and tackle the issue head-on.
	There are excellent professional landlords in Nottingham who take pride in the standard of accommodation they offer, but some do not, and it is important to stress that the management of the private rented sector is not simply a good landlord versus bad landlord issue. The sector is complex, and landlords come in many guises. In particular, there is an emerging need to target so-called “accidental” or “amateur” landlords who are new to the sector—those renting out an inherited family home, letting a property whose owners are in long-term care, or who have bought a house for a family member to live in with others. According to Rightmove, home owners letting out their property as a result of circumstance make up as much as 30% of all landlords, and many are casualties of the recession. Those landlords are often inexperienced and can be naive about the standards and management needed to provide quality, well managed accommodation. With better advice, guidance and—yes—better regulation, we can help those people become responsible landlords who provide decent accommodation for their tenants.
	Nottingham city council recently completed a review of property conditions in the city’s private rented sector and assessed the effectiveness of voluntary accreditation as a way of driving up standards. I agree that there should be greater national recognition of accredited landlords and the superior management and service they provide, but our local review concluded that although accreditation is an effective tool in driving up standards, on its own it will always leave a significant part of the market unprotected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) spoke about the way accreditation has been used in her city, particularly for students, and that is also the case in Nottingham. For other parts of the market, however, accreditation does not seem to work as well, and it remains a challenge to get landlords to join such schemes. That is why in Nottingham we have introduced an additional licensing scheme under an article 4 direction to manage the private rented sector better, especially in parts of the city with a high concentration of homes of multiple occupation.
	Nottingham is a young city with almost a third of its residents aged 18 to 29. That high rate of young people can in part be attributed to the large number of students studying at our popular universities and colleges. The city’s growing student population has been the predominant driver behind the private rented sector’s wish to convert properties into HMOs, particularly in the Dunkirk and Lenton area of my constituency, but also in Radford, the Park, Wollaton Park and Lenton Abbey, which are close to the main campuses of the university of Nottingham. Uncontrolled development of HMOs has put pressure on the number of affordable rented properties suitable for families, and HMOs in high concentration have had an enormous impact on the resilience, balance, stability and sustainability of the neighbourhoods in which they sit.
	People in my constituency who have campaigned on HMO-related issues believe that article 4 directions are still enabling HMO creation to take place, but in a controlled manner that benefits tenants as well as other residents in the neighbourhood. Accreditation and licensing are not mutually exclusive—they are complementary tools to improve standards.
	The Nottingham experience indicates that the private rented sector, while needing to provide a professional service, is still not professional enough in its approach to rented accommodation, especially for students and other under-35s. In Nottingham that has contributed to the issues our city faces, but Labour’s plans would seek to address such concerns by providing more certainty, more stability, and greater protection for tenants and landlords alike.
	Too many tenants and potential tenants face rip-off fees from letting agents. Landlords are being charged for services provided by the agent, and tenants are charged again for the same services. Despite facing fees averaging £355 every time they move, tenants continue to report difficulties in contacting their agents, and serious delays in getting repairs and maintenance completed. It is simply not good enough.
	We need better management of the private rented sector, an end to rip-off agents’ fees, action to make three-year tenancies the norm, predictable rent rises, and more homes built to tackle the crisis in supply. Labour’s proposals have the potential to transform life for individual tenants and parts of my constituency that are suffering from the worst effects of the Government’s policies. It is astonishing that Ministers continue to oppose those proposals. Have they simply forgotten the thousands of people in Nottingham who are experiencing the greatest housing crisis in a generation? Well, we have not, and we will not.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are debating the private rented sector. I suspect there will be many more such debates between now and the general election, because the situation requires urgent intervention, and in many respects a change in the law.
	Like some of my colleagues who have already spoken, I represent an inner-London constituency, and we are facing the most acute housing crisis that I can remember, both in my time as an MP and before that as a councillor in a neighbouring borough. When I hold a constituency advice surgery—as we all do—I am frequently there for five or six hours, and 90% of the cases are about housing. Such cases are desperately sad: it is frightening to hear about what people are going through and the trauma of families being upheaved and forced to move out of the borough from one private rented property to another and another and another, with all the disruption that causes to their children’s education, their health and family relationships, and the damage it does to the community as a whole.
	The ward where I live has a population turnover of almost 30% per year, which makes any kind of community cohesion much more difficult and voluntary organisations less well populated, and affects all the social infrastructure that is so important in our societies. We must consider the desperate housing need, not just in inner-city areas but in the country overall.

Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems is that these constant moves often involve children? It is clear from the research that a child having to shift from one school to another—sometimes two or three schools in one year—is about as damaging to their educational opportunities as can be imagined.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend makes a strong point with which I absolutely concur and which I understand well. It works like this: a family is in receipt of local housing allowance, and the landlord puts the rent up way beyond what the allowance enables them to pay; they do not have enough other income—either from a low-paid job or from other benefits—to make up the difference, so they have to move. There is no possibility of their getting another private rented property in the same community, so the council is forced to do its best by hassling various agents all over the place to try to find somewhere for them to live—my council does that all the time, and Camden council does much the same thing. The family is perhaps found somewhere to live in Enfield, Barking or wherever. They are there for six months, they have the temerity to complain about the conditions, the tenancy ends, and they get moved again. The children either have to be uprooted from one school to another in another borough, or make a long journey to return to their original borough—such as Camden or Islington—and try to maintain themselves at the same school. What kind of life is it for a seven or eight-year-old child to be dragged on a bus or train for an hour every morning to get to primary school and has to change time and again? Ask the teachers how the kids suffer because of that.
	My borough is doing its best to provide as much council housing as it can. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) kindly
	visited our borough last week, and she will have seen the excellent quality of our new build. Indeed, it is rather better quality than the current private sector new build: larger rooms, better accommodation, and more energy efficient—very good quality stuff. It is difficult to find land to build it on and expensive to do, but the social investment is enormous, as is the return for the whole community.
	The message from the Government is that we should increase council rents to 80% of market value. That would be totally unaffordable for people who live in our existing council properties, and would mean that they could not accept even if they were offered them. We must maintain the social rented model and address the problems of housing in this country, essentially by building a lot more council houses.
	Some 200,000 or more new households are created every year, and the number of new properties being developed in the country is around 100,000 per year. We are all into the science of managing shortages. Councils are doing that, as is everybody else, and the only safety valve is the private rented sector. The only safety valve in that is ever-increasing rents and the huge profitability that exists within that sector. We therefore need to do two things; the first is to support local authorities to build council housing.
	I do not support the sale of council houses or big discounts on their sale, particularly in areas with enormous housing shortages, not because it makes a lot of difference to residents, if they remain living in them, but because later the properties might be sold on or rented in the private rented sector. The highest rent I have come across so far—there might be more in the pipeline—for a former council flat is £660 per week. For the person living next door in an identical council flat—possibly even in better conditions, because the council tends to look after things quite well—the rent would be about £100 to £120 per week. How can anyone possibly justify that discrepancy?
	I support the Opposition Front-Bench team’s proposal for the regulation of letting agents and for the enforcement of much better conditions and much longer tenancies. In areas of very high housing demand—in London and other cities such as Oxford and York and in the centres of other cities—rent rises are huge. I have no idea where the Residential Landlords Association gets its figures from, but it claims that in the 12 months to March 2014, the rent increase in London was 1.4%. I tried this figure out on people in my community, but I only got as far as “1.4” before they started laughing. They said, “That must have been last week’s increase.” I have no idea where these figures come from, but these things are very important.
	We seem to be presiding over a cowboy mentality among some, although not all, letting agents who think it okay to stick some scruffy piece of paper in a window saying, “No DSS allowed here”—they are a bit out of date: the Department of Social Security was abolished a long time ago and is now the Department for Work and Pensions; perhaps they should be educated about that. However, should anyone be allowed to say, “If you’re on benefits, you’re a second-class citizen and you cannot even apply”? Also, the “Panorama” programme has exposed the racial profiling that goes on, presumably under pressure from landlords saying they do not want
	any Muslims, blacks, Jews—or any other group they care to identify. To his credit, the Minister correctly agreed with me that this is criminal activity, completely wrong and has to be outlawed. I hope there will be serious prosecutions where it can be proved, as a lesson to others that we will not accept race discrimination in the housing market.
	I hope that the House will support the motion. I do not know whether the Government will support it—I seriously doubt it—but I hope we can have not just the regulations outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East but even longer tenancies. I also think there is a case for rent controls, particularly in areas of very high housing demand such as London. If we do not manage the private rented sector, control rents and build more housing in London, it will become a totally divided city: a city divided between those lucky enough to get social housing through councils or housing associations, those rich enough to buy and become owner-occupiers, and the rest, who will be spending all their earnings and savings on excessive rents. It will lead to labour shortages and economic decline in our big cities. We need regulation and a determination that we, as a nation, will solve the housing crisis and give all our kids somewhere decent and safe to live.

Graham Jones: In the short time left, I want to address a couple of points that seem to be central to the argument from Government Members: that rent controls have destroyed the private sector over the past 50 years; that rents have not risen recently; and that there is no need for any of the proposals from Opposition Members and the shadow Minister.
	I shall deal first with the claim that the private rented sector was destroyed by rent controls. I remember my great granddad living in a rented property, as many people did on Grange lane in Accrington, but as in many areas and cities across the country, his house was demolished under the post-war clearance scheme, and he was moved into social housing—a bungalow. Many thousands of people were moved out of private rented accommodation; it was simply slum clearance. The properties were not fit to live in, so in the post-war period, people were moved to new builds, which, in those days, only local authorities could build. The transition of people from the private rented sector pre-war to social housing post-war, and the reduction in the percentage of people in the private rented sector, was primarily down to slum clearance and the expansive building of social housing by local authorities. It was not the post-war rent controls that destroyed the private rented sector, but the quality of the housing stock, and that still applies today. With the rise of the private rented sector, we see a deterioration in the quality of the housing stock, which leads us, in a roundabout way, to the proposals from the Opposition Front-Bench team, which I welcome.
	I also want to take on the claim that rents have not risen. I think the Minister said that earlier, but when I intervened on him, he quickly reeled back from that. He made it clear that the reason rents have not risen is that they are indexed to the capital value of property. He said that people have a choice between realising their assets in property or investing elsewhere. The reason rents have not risen that much is that the value of
	properties has not risen. The housing market has been stagnating for some time, which caps rents, because naturally if someone has £100,000 in property, they will look for where they can get the best value, and if they can get it elsewhere, they will shift that investment. So rents are inextricably indexed to capital values, and when we see house prices rise, we will see rents rise, as we are now seeing in London. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, said that in Brighton rents and house values are twice the national average, which clearly made the point about indexation.
	Neither claim is true, therefore, which is why we need to do what my Labour colleagues have proposed: to put in place rent controls, to cap rents and to provide assurance to tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, we cannot have young children and families being put on short-term tenancies and then being moved out. It destroys children’s education and it destroys the lives of families. We have to deal with that so longer-term tenancies are also vital.
	It is claimed that the public can get redress, but they cannot. We have seen legal aid cuts to housing, and it is very difficult for people in the private rented sector to get any form of redress. Our local citizens advice bureaux have seen a reduction in staff numbers, the so-called big society is shrinking rapidly and people are finding it increasingly hard to get redress on housing issues. It is not as easy as is made out—if someone has a housing problem with a landlord, everything will be all right because they can get legal redress. Actually, I do not think that that was possible at the start of this Government, and the situation has only been made far more difficult by changes to government funding.
	It is said that there is choice and that private landlords do their best. The problem with the private rented sector in many areas, including mine, is the stock condition. No matter how many landlords or what type of landlord, 20% of properties in my area have category 1 hazards and 40% have category 2 hazards. Landlords are operating in a very difficult environment and with very poor housing stock, and they are not improving that housing stock. That is an issue, and choice does not come into it when there is an endemic problem of stock condition. The problem needs to be addressed in other ways. We cannot just say there is choice out there.
	Finally, I return to the housing stock in Hyndburn. Post-war and pre-war, roughly one third of the housing stock was rented, and the same is true today. All we have seen is a shift between the different rental types of social housing and the private rented sector. That reinforces the point that one third of people in my constituency will always want to rent and that two thirds will always be owner occupiers. That is likely to carry on. It is a question of how we provide the one third of accommodation that needs to be rented. It is not about saying the private rented sector is better than the social rented sector. Given the time, I shall sit down and allow the Front-Bench speakers to wind up the debate.

Lyn Brown: I draw the House’s attention to my quarter share in a residential rental property, as recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	We have had a wide-ranging and, at times, very moving debate today on a subject that is at the centre of family life for many households in the country. The unprecedented growth in the private rented sector over recent years takes us into new territory. The politicians and policy makers—and, I think, us collectively—need to update the regulations and the expectations that we have of this sector.
	The most insecure sector is the private rented sector, and many tenants in it are among the lowest paid. They are without resources and often face the biggest challenges. In many areas, rents are still rising faster than our pay packets, with some industry estimates indicating that rents have risen more than 10% since 2010. In his well-researched speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) spoke with real knowledge about the ruinous hikes and much greater than 10% rises in central London. As he rightly said, this is bad for tenants, bad for communities and bad for the key workers on which this city depends.
	Almost 4 million households—around 9 million people—now live in the private rented sector, and the majority are let through an agent rather than directly through the landlord. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) spoke with great knowledge of the problems caused for students by the letting agents in their areas. I listened with real interest to the action of the Hull student union to counter the difficulties caused by letting agencies and substandard landlords.
	As we have heard throughout the debate, the problems associated with letting agents include rip-off fees, and we have heard of Shelter’s survey, which found that 94% of agents charge additional fees on top of rents and deposits—and additional fees can total over £700. That is why, given that the landlord is the client of the letting agent, we propose to ban fees charged to tenants. The lack of safeguards, including no right to a written contract or a guaranteed code of conduct, is another problem, while there is no proper accountability. Despite 8,000 complaints to the ombudsman about letting agents in 2012—50% higher than just four years ago—there have been very few prosecutions.

Mark Prisk: Perhaps the hon. Lady could answer the question posed earlier but not answered. In banning fees to tenants, what will Labour do to try to ensure that there are no increases in rent? After all, this can often happen at the beginning of a tenancy. Is Labour going to ban those fees, or not?

Lyn Brown: There is no evidence from Scotland that that has happened. I genuinely believe that people out there who are listening to this debate, many of whom will be experiencing these fees, will not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument today.
	Short-term tenancies are now the norm. Shelter’s mystery shopping of letting agents found that 29 out of 30 of them told landlords that they would offer the property on only a six or 12-month assured shorthold tenancy. As a result, 30% of private renters worry about their landlord or letting agent ending the contract before they are ready, and two-thirds would like to have the option to stay in their tenancy longer if they wanted to.
	Living in uncertainty and being forced to move on regularly is not just a nuisance and expensive; it has other costs, too. Families are unable to settle or put down roots, and, as my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) reminded us, children often have to change schools a number of times or face long journeys and they lose any friends they make. They are rootless and their education faces massive disruption. These are the families who are not on doctors’ lists and not accessing preventive health care; it is members of these families who are turning up at A and E and being diagnosed with stage four cancers.
	We have heard that families in the private rented sector are nine times more likely to move than those who live in other tenures—and often forcibly through eviction, as movingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That is why Labour has set out our proposals to legislate for longer-term tenancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly said, Labour’s proposals to make longer-term tenancies the norm and to set a ceiling on rent increases would give families the support and the security they need to budget.

John Stevenson: Providing a three-year tenancy may be great for the tenant, but what about the landlord, particularly the accidental landlord, who does not want to have to give away a three-year tenancy?

Lyn Brown: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East answered that question during the debate. She talked about how we need to ensure that there are protections in place for the short-term landlord. Believe me, I have a quarter share in a property, so I understand what it is to be an accidental landlord.
	Lack of security of tenure means that tenants in the private rented sector feel less able to complain about poor standards. A third of these homes are “non-decent”, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) the story of Kathleen who lost her home after complaining about its poor condition. I want to talk about some of the conditions that people experience in my own borough of Newham.
	Newham is an area in east London that has seen a startling change in housing tenure over the years, as similarly and ably illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) in respect of his home town. Over the last decade, the private rented sector in Newham has doubled from 20% to 40% of the housing stock, so it now stands at double the national average for England. Labour-led Newham council understood that the unprecedented growth in the largely unregulated private rented sector and increasingly poor housing conditions—not to mention income tax and council tax evasion—meant that something needed to be done. The council listened to the community it serves and showed real leadership by implementing a licensing scheme to tackle those who refused to play by the rules, whose poorly run properties ruin neighbourhoods and blight family lives through unsanitary, squalid, overcrowded and insecure tenancies.
	Let me provide just one example of what Newham’s licensing scheme has uncovered. Seven adults and two children living in a small three-bedroom house were paying £2,300 in rent each month. The kitchen window was cracked with sharp edges in places and the bathroom window could not be closed. Fixtures, fittings and appliances were in such poor condition that they presented serious health and safety, fire and electric shock risks—and they did not even have a smoke alarm. Those tenants, afraid of losing their home, felt unable to complain. I am sure that Members will agree that those are terrible conditions for a high and unpredictable rent. High rents, low wages, the shortage of housing supply and insecurity of tenure all exacerbate conditions in which exploitative practices flourish.
	I do not think that we have heard anything from the Government today to suggest that they understand that this housing crisis—and it is a crisis—is a major driver of the cost of living pressure on hard-working families. We are building less than half the number of homes that we need to build in order to keep up with demand. That creates conditions in which families can be ripped off by letting agencies, and can find themselves in exploitative, insecure, short-term tenancies, experiencing unpredictable rises in their rent bills. Our families deserve so much better, and I urge Members to vote for those families today. I commend the motion to the House.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the opportunity to debate an incredibly important issue, and to do so in a largely good-natured and constructive way, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has just done. She showed real passion on behalf of her constituents, as she was quite entitled to do. I shall return to that shortly, but first let me also welcome the Labour party’s new-found interest in this issue, which they have developed four years after entering into opposition and, perhaps more significantly, 17 years after entering into government. They had a 13-year window of opportunity in which to tackle all the issues raised in their motion, along with all the additional issues that have been raised by Labour Members today, but they did not take that opportunity.
	This coalition Government recognise that the private rented sector is playing an increasingly important role in the housing market. It has doubled to serve more than 3.8 million households, and many of those people value the flexibility that it offers them and choose, positively, to live in it. That is especially true of young people. The phrase “Generation Rent” was used by a number of speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I have spoken on a platform with the excellent people who are organising the “Generation Rent” campaign, and I recognise that the position of young people will be a serious issue in the run-up to the general election. I am proud of the fact that the Government are tackling many of the problems identified by that group and by other campaigning groups such as the National Union of Students.
	The status of the private rented sector is extremely important, and it is actually performing very well. As I said earlier, the supply of private rented housing has grown to serve nearly 4 million people. As many Members have pointed out, during the current Parliament rents
	have increased more slowly than inflation, by an average of 1% a year. Overall, the quality of accommodation in the sector, which has been mentioned several times today, has improved. It is more energy-efficient, and there are fewer non-decent homes than in the past. The satisfaction levels reported by tenants themselves are high: 83% of tenants are satisfied, according to the most recent surveys. That is a higher percentage than reported following similar surveys of the public sector. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price): I too find, as a constituency Member, that many constituents come to me—sadly—with problems relating to the public sector.
	The vast majority of people in the private rented sector move of their own volition. That is an aspect of the flexibility that the sector provides people, particularly during the early stages of their lives. I went through exactly that process myself. When I graduated from Bristol university, I spent one year in a one-room bedsit. I then spent three years in an attic; I had my own kitchen but had to share a bathroom. When I could afford it, I rented a one-bedroom flat, and then, when I could afford it, I entered the housing market.
	Some Opposition Members will have had rather different social experiences. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are challenges that we need to tackle. The biggest challenge of all was mentioned by several Members. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), the former Housing Minister, we need to expand supply in this sector and, indeed, in all other sectors. We need to build more. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) acknowledged that the Labour party needs to have a good look at its past record, although perhaps, belatedly, it is learning some lessons in this regard.
	We also need to look at the professional status of landlords and ensure that there is good management practice. We need to tackle rogue landlords, while not penalising the vast majority who provide a good service for their tenants. We need to make letting agents’ fees more transparent, and we need to meet the growing demand from families for longer tenancies. Those are the challenges, and the Government are taking action to meet them all.
	We want the private rented sector to grow. We want more purpose-built accommodation in the sector, and we want it to attract institutional investment. We want more large-scale, professionally managed, high-quality, well-designed accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford asked what had happened to the £1 billion Build to Rent scheme that he launched when he was the Housing Minister. We believe that we are still on course to deliver 10,000 new units by 2015, and 16 projects are already under way. Due diligence is being done by the Homes and Communities Agency, and we hope to make further announcements soon.
	We need regulation—smart regulation—only when it is appropriate. We do not want to adopt a blanket approach that would deter investment, add to cost pressures and increase rents. We want to crack down on rogue landlords but not to add to the burdens on ordinary landlords, such as the shadow Minister, who I am sure are providing a decent service.
	Local authorities have a critical role in the sector, and we expect them to use the powers that are available to them to tackle the bad practice that sadly exists. Last
	year, we announced that £6.7 million would be made available to local authorities that suffer particularly complex problems with rogue landlords. We have provided £125,000 to Leeds city council to tackle the problems that it has identified. I am glad that the shadow Minister who wound up for the Opposition mentioned the problems in her constituency of West Ham. I am sure that she will want to thank the Government for the fact that they have provided £1 million to Mayor Wales in her borough to deal with the problems there—far and away the biggest investment we have made out of the £6.7 million.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Williams: I will take only one intervention, as I am up against the buffers.

Graham Jones: The Minister talks about rogue landlords. Can he tell us what specific legislation exists to deal with rogue landlords who manage housing stock that is in a poor condition?

Stephen Williams: There is a whole suite of legislation that local authorities should be using. The basic duty is to provide accommodation that is in a fit and proper state to be let. That covers all sorts of things, including electrical safety. That is why we have provided these resources to local authorities. The powers are there. Where there are particular problems, we have given the resources to deal with them. Already once in this Parliament, in 2012, we updated the guidance—I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question—to local authorities and we will update it again this year, so that everyone is clear what powers are available to deal with and prosecute, if necessary, rogue landlords. We have removed the cap on the £5,000 fine, so that if local authorities find that there are problems, magistrates have the freedom to ensure that they can issue the strongest possible penalties to root out bad practice in the sector.
	On letting agents, we have already announced that they will be required to join an ombudsman scheme. In April, we approved three schemes. Secondary legislation is going through to ensure that all letting and property management agents belong to such a scheme. Just a couple of weeks ago, we published the “How to rent” guide to empower tenants with better information, so that they know their rights. That publication has been warmly received in the sector. We are working, genuinely, with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to update the code of practice on that area.
	Rent control was mentioned several times. Earlier this year, the shadow Housing Minister said to Cathy Newman on “Channel 4 News”:
	“Rent controls are not going to work in practice.”
	I assume that she has changed her mind since that time.

Emma Reynolds: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Williams: I have only two minutes left, so I will finish my points.
	As we all know—the evidence is there—before the Housing Act 1988, the private rented sector shrank to just 9% of households. Since then, it has doubled to 18% of households. Evidence from Britain and around the world shows that rent controls always lead to fewer properties on the market and higher rents.
	We have also been working on a model tenancy agreement, which will be published soon. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), that will indeed address the issues that students face.
	On letting agents fees, we have announced that there will be a requirement to belong to an ombudsman scheme. In the Consumer Rights Bill, which went through this House last week, we outlined provisions to deal with that. There will be transparency on fees. That will root out the practices that we all deplore and agree are wrong: double charging for credit agreements and changes to tenancy agreements. That should not be happening. We think that transparency and the fine for not belonging to the ombudsman scheme will largely root that out.
	We all agree that we need to build more housing of all tenure types, but the Labour party presided over a bubble and a crash in the private rental sector and a huge contraction in the number of social houses available. The coalition has seen strong growth and the most ambitious affordable housing programme in a generation.
	The motion shows Labour is playing catch-up with the Government. We have published a guide to renting, and we are about to publish a model tenancy; Labour failed to do both while in office. We have introduced an ombudsman scheme for letting agents; Labour failed to do that. We are introducing transparency over fees and a fine for non-compliance; Labour failed to do that. We are giving guidance and resources to tackle rogue landlords; Labour failed to do that.
	The private rental sector is important and growing. The Government want it to provide an attractive, purpose-built investment for landlords, but also, crucially, a safe and secure home for tenants. The motion ought to be a lament about the lack of Labour action over 13 years. As with the economy, however, there is no apology and no credible remedy, and I urge colleagues to reject it.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 226, Noes 276.

Question accordingly negatived.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

[Relevant Documents: Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 12 March 2014, on the costing of pre-election policy proposals, HC 1151. Written evidence to the Treasury Committee, on the costing of pre-election policy proposals, reported to the House on 12 March 2014 and published on the internet, HC 1151.]

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Edward Balls: I beg to move,
	That this House believes the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility should be enhanced to allow it to independently audit the spending and tax commitments in the general election manifestos of the main political parties, and calls for legislative proposals to enable this to be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.
	Over the past four years, the Office for Budget Responsibility has become an established part of the framework for British economic policy-making with broad-based and cross-party support. It is vital that the OBR’s impartiality and independence is preserved. That was a point made by Members from all parts of the House when the OBR was established, and it is why there remains a consensus, which is reflected in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, that the OBR should not be drawn into party politics by commenting on the merits of individual policies or examining alternative policy scenarios.

Thomas Docherty: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early, but I have just realised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are not here for this debate. Will he perhaps tell the House where they are today?

Edward Balls: I believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is on a visit to the United States. It may be that the Chancellor is engaged in rather more immediate and urgent matters that have cropped up in the past 24 hours, or it may be that he will arrive in the next few minutes to respond to this debate. I had assumed that the Chancellor would respond to this debate. I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have had any other guidance. Anyway, let us hope that he turns up.
	In the meantime, and fully consistent with that consensus, it is our view that now is the right time to take a further step to enhance the role of the OBR. I will come on to explain our strategy and seek the views of the Chancellor, so he has about 10 minutes to get here.

Jesse Norman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: Sure. If the hon. Gentleman is playing for time in order to facilitate the arrival of the Chancellor, I will take as many interventions as is needed for the Chancellor to wing his way over from whichever lawyer’s office he is sitting in at the moment.

Jesse Norman: I think the Minister present is fully capable of discharging any function required to see off the shadow Chancellor. A statement from the Institute for Government said:
	“More feasible than making any hasty change to the OBR remit at this point would be to consider this option in detail during the five-year review of the OBR’s operation due to take place in 2015.”
	How does the shadow Chancellor respond to that?

Edward Balls: I am making a speech in an attempt to build a cross-party consensus. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Chancellor, or whoever is in his place, will see me off, that might say something about their approach to this important matter.

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Edward Balls: In a second. Perhaps not at all. [Interruption.] Go on then. I will come to the matter of the Institute for Government’s views in a moment, when I get to the issue of timetabling. I want to set out my approach to the law, timetabling and modalities, and I will do so in that order.

Brooks Newmark: While the shadow Chancellor is outlining his proposals, it would perhaps be helpful if he could explain why he opposed the OBR getting involved in auditing these sorts of things in 2010, and why he has suddenly changed his mind now. Is it because he is concerned that the public have decided that he has no economic credibility whatever?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman will obviously struggle ever to have anything that might achieve a cross-party consensus in the national interest, but I will come to the political point he is making in a second. First, let me return to the serious matter that is before the House.
	The OBR’s charter states that
	“The Government is responsible for all policy decisions and for policy costings, i.e. quantifying the direct impact of policy decisions on the public finances. Subject to receiving sufficient information from the Treasury to do so, the OBR will provide independent scrutiny and certification of the Government’s policy costings. The OBR will state whether it agrees or disagrees with the Government’s costings, or whether it has been given insufficient time or information to reach a judgement.”
	It is our proposal that the OBR play that role for the next election, not just for current Governments but for prospective Governments.
	I said in my letter to the head of the OBR of 22 September last year —this is not a proposal I am making today—setting out the detail of our proposal:
	“The reform I am proposing would mean the Opposition would submit costings for proposed manifesto commitments on spending and tax—obtained from, for example, the House of Commons Library, Parliamentary Questions or the Institute for Fiscal Studies—and the OBR would ‘provide independent scrutiny and certification’ of those costings.”
	Those are the exact words currently in the OBR’s charter.

Chris Ruane: Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Government do not welcome this cross-party consensus that the OBR should look at the Opposition parties’ proposals for Government?

Edward Balls: I have not given up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am hoping that if the Chancellor turns up he may end up welcoming this proposal, overwhelmed by the clarity and objectivity of the analysis that I am about to put before the House. Let us wait and see.
	I accept that this reform, which I first proposed last September and has been widely discussed and debated since, is a radical change. This is the first time that any political party in Britain has said that it wants this kind of independent audit of its manifesto, but it is not without precedent. Countries that have adopted a version of this approach include the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the United States. For the UK, while it is a radical change from what has gone before, we believe that it is the right thing to do to help restore trust in politics.
	When whoever wins the next election is set to inherit not a balanced Budget, as the Chancellor promised in 2010, but on current forecasts a debt set to be £75 billion, it will be important for my party and for all parties to show that all our manifesto policies and commitments are properly costed and funded and independently audited.

Mark Garnier: I am pleased that the shadow Chancellor is trying to build a consensus, and of course he did write his letter in September last year. However, Robert Chote wrote to the Treasury Committee on 15 January this year saying:
	“If Parliament wished us to play this role in the 2015 election, we would need a very clear steer in the very near future to have any hope of putting the necessary practical arrangements in place to deliver a smooth process.”
	Why has the shadow Chancellor waited for fully six months before doing anything about it?

Edward Balls: I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, and I will come to my conversation in a moment. I appreciate the serious way in which the hon. Gentleman is engaging in the debate, and timing is one important issue that we need to discuss today. It is important to understand that if we choose not to go ahead we do so in a full understanding of the choices we have, the steps we would need to take and the actions that would be required on the relevant timetable. If we choose not to go ahead, it is important to understand why we are not going ahead. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.
	Owing to its importance, I have set out from the outset to forge cross-party agreement on this important reform. The House will know that the Chair of the Treasury Committee has been a long-standing advocate of this reform, as is the current head of the OBR, Mr Chote, who said at the beginning of this year:
	“I believe that independent scrutiny of pre-election policy proposals could contribute to better policy making, to a more informed public debate.”
	It is true that when the OBR was initially established there was caution on both sides of the House about this proposal. In the early days, when the OBR was establishing its reputation—I think it has established its reputation now for independence and objectivity—to be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked about this in October 2010, he said that this was
	“a legitimate matter for the House to debate and to decide.”

Brooks Newmark: Will the shadow Chancellor give way?

Edward Balls: No—once was enough. That was an encouraging thing for the Chancellor to say.
	I have raised the matter in the House a number of times over the past nine months and each time I have urged us, in the spirit set out by the Chancellor, the Chair of the Select Committee and Mr Chote, to try to put politics aside and do the right thing. I am pleased to say that the Chief Secretary told the House, at Treasury questions a few months ago:
	“The idea is well worth further consideration.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 173.]
	We have not yet managed to achieve that cross-party consensus, but we still have a couple of hours.

David Rutley: All Members on both sides of the House regard Robert Chote as an outstanding head of the OBR. Has the shadow Chancellor not seen his comments that it is better to consider the issue at the beginning of the next Parliament, rather than rush into it for 2015 and risk undermining support for the idea, which we all think is important, in the longer term?

Edward Balls: Either we find reasons not to proceed or we proceed. I spoke to Mr Chote last Friday. I will come to our conversation in a moment. It deals directly with that matter.

Stephen Doughty: Given the cross-party approach and the interest, which my right hon. Friend has set out clearly, does he think that one of the reasons why the Chancellor and the Government have not agreed to the measure may be that they want to make misleading claims about the Opposition’s policies in the run-up to the election?

Edward Balls: Were the Chancellor to say that the proposals in our manifesto were uncosted and simultaneously try to block our manifesto from being independently audited by the OBR, that would look as if he had a political motive. But as I said, I am still hoping that cross-party consensus will break out in the course of my speech. My hon. Friend is being too pessimistic. Let us give it another 10 minutes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: I will talk about legislation first, then I will take two more interventions.
	Of course, there are a number of detailed issues to resolve. To that end, over the past eight months, I have had a series of discussions with the permanent secretary to the Treasury, with the head of the OBR, and in the normal course of parliamentary business with the Chair of the Treasury Committee and others, and I want to update the House on where I think we are.
	First, on the question whether primary legislation is necessary, in the letter that I originally wrote to the head of the OBR, which I quoted a moment ago, I cited the previously declared view of the Chair of the Select Committee, who said that he was not fully convinced that the current legislation would not allow such a role for the OBR. It was uncertain, but he was not fully convinced.
	However, the head of the OBR replied to me in October, saying that he had taken legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor’s department and that the view of the Treasury Solicitor was that a change in the law was required—that there would be a need for primary legislation. To that end, I wrote to the Chancellor on 15 October to confirm that we would support any changes needed to the OBR’s charter and primary legislation, and would seek to help him build a cross-party consensus to achieve that. I wrote to the Chancellor and to the Chair of the Select Committee with a proposal for the amendment of the law, with the clauses set out for discussion. I regret to say that so far the Chancellor has not replied to my letter or engaged in that discussion, but as I said, it is not too late for him to do so.
	At that time, the Clerks of the House of Commons informed us that with the Chancellor’s support and an amendment to the long title of the Bill, one option would be to table an amendment to the Finance Bill. It is just two clauses, so this change could be made well in advance of the 2015 general election. Regrettably, because there was no engagement on this two or three months ago, that change to the long title did not happen. If there was a way to table those clauses for Report stage next week, we would support a Government amendment to that effect. If not, and the Government wanted to bring forward primary legislation in the autumn, for example through a one-day Bill, we would give such legislation full support.

Alison Seabeck: During the recent elections, we saw a lot of public dissatisfaction about what happens in and from this place. Some of that is to do with the lack of transparency and consensus on matters such as this. Would it not send an important message to the public if we had cross-party consensus on openness about manifestos and the figures within them?

Edward Balls: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we support the role that the OBR plays. The Government proposed an independent OBR, a reform that we supported, and in that spirit we want to extend its role, as happens in other countries. It is not unreasonable, and it would exactly help with the issues of trust to which my hon. Friend refers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not entirely unsympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman asks for, but is not the fundamental problem that even a shadow Chancellor as powerful and influential as he is does not have complete control over the shadow Cabinet, or even of his Leader, who make spending promises that are not part of the finance and budgeted proposals made by the shadow Chancellor?

Edward Balls: I could ask the hon. Gentleman why on earth he thinks I want to have this independent audit: to make sure it is all done through the proper process. Perhaps I should say that. Actually, the shadow Cabinet has been exemplary in not setting out uncosted promises that cannot be delivered. We have made no claim to abolish inheritance tax. That is not a commitment in a manifesto that we have to renege upon. Nor have we made a commitment to abolish tuition fees. So the hon. Gentleman raises some issues here.

Geoffrey Robinson: The shadow Chancellor has informed the House how long he has been working on obtaining consensus on this policy with the Government. Did I hear him say that he wrote to the Chancellor back in October asking for a meeting and consultation and the Chancellor has still not replied?

Edward Balls: That is correct. I sent him draft clauses with an offer to reach a cross-party agreement around those. There are two ways in which we can approach these things. We can try to see off each other, or we can try to forge that consensus, and it is not too late. So let us give it another go.
	The timetable issue has been raised by several hon. Members. The head of the OBR has told me that if we can reach cross-party agreement on the details of how we can take forward this role for the OBR during the summer, he would be content for the underpinning legislation to be put in place in the autumn. It is commonplace for Governments to move forward on a policy, to agree the details and modalities, while putting the legislation in place. He would be content with that, which brings me to the key timetabling issue.
	A number of detailed procedural issues will clearly need to be worked through if the reform is to go ahead this year. When we met in February, following his discussions with the Select Committee, the head of the OBR told me that in his view we would need to have the discussions on the details concluded by the end of the summer. He said that that would be possible only if we could achieve in-principle agreement to proceed by the early summer, by the end of June.
	I know that the head of the OBR is pessimistic that it will be possible to get that in-principle agreement, as we heard from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) a moment ago. If there is no in-principle agreement to do this, it will not be possible to proceed in this Parliament. But I told the head of the OBR that we were having this debate today and that we still sought to achieve that consensus, and I asked for his view. He confirmed to me last Friday that his view at the beginning of the year is still his view today: that if we can reach agreement in principle to proceed by the end of June—in the next few days—we can work out the details over the summer, complete those discussions by the end of the summer, and put in place the legislation in the autumn, during which time the work of the OBR could commence.
	I understand the view of the Institute for Government, which says that perhaps we should give up and do this in the next Parliament, but I do not want to do that because we owe it to the public to do the right thing. The head of the OBR’s view is that if the Chancellor and those on the Treasury Front Bench are willing to come along today and agree in principle to proceed, we can go ahead. There is no issue of timing and timetable to get in the way.

Pat McFadden: May I get to heart of the point about timing and consensus? We have already heard some quotes from Robert Chote. This is what he said when he gave oral evidence to the Select Committee and was asked whether this could be done by the next election: “It would be difficult but by no means impossible. The key thing that you would need to have is agreement in principle across
	the parties that it was a good idea to do it. At the end of the day, if Parliament wants us to try this, we will do it to the best of our ability given the resources and the time we have available.” Given that those statements are on the record, does my right hon. Friend agree that if this does not happen, it is because there is not a political consensus? I hope that the Minister will not say that this is about timing but will be up front about why the consensus is not there, and admit that she and her colleagues are blocking it.

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we, as a House, decide to proceed in a cross-party way today, and in the coming days, this reform can be agreed over the summer, the legislation to back it can be put in place, and we can have independent audits of manifestos at the next election. It is not a matter of timetabling, because the head of the OBR says that it can be done: it is only an issue of political will. If, in the end, the Chancellor—who has not turned up—does not want to do it, it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen not because the OBR will not do it, because we will not do it, or because it cannot be done, but because Government Front Benchers do not want it to happen.

Mark Field: I have some sympathy with what the shadow Chancellor is trying to achieve. While he is right that the OBR should be beyond partisan politics, it is the case that it has not been beyond reproach in relation to its predictions and continues to be well out of line, given what we expected our deficit to have come down to. Does he recognise that this process is not going to draw a line under any disputes over matters to do with economic programmes? Ultimately, it will be a judgment by the voters rather than the OBR, and this process should not be allowed to take it out of their hands come election time.

Edward Balls: Of course, none of us is beyond reproach, including the OBR and including the Chancellor. The OBR has had a few rather sharp things to say about some of the Chancellor’s practices over the past few months as regards fiscal decision making. In the end, of course the voters have to decide; they have to look at the manifestos and make their judgment. In our view, if an independent body—the OBR—scrutinises the costings of individual proposals to check that they have been done properly, that can only be to the benefit of the public debate. Ultimately, it does not take away the voters’ choice, but why would we choose to have them misinformed or uninformed when we could have them properly informed? That is the choice before the House.

John Thurso: Like the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, I fully support the principle, and if we can arrive at political consensus, I would be delighted. At the session from which my colleague on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), quoted, Mr Chote put quite a lot of barriers and difficulties in place. At the end, he said that we should not rush this to arrive at an imperfect solution. Does the shadow Chancellor accept that if we cannot get it right, that is worse than doing nothing at all?

Edward Balls: That is why I wrote to the Chancellor last October seeking to begin discussions and putting the draft clauses on the table. I have had a number of discussions with the head of the OBR, who has made exactly those points. He wants to know that the resources will be there and what the rules of engagement will be. He wants to know that this will be done properly. He wants to know, in particular, that the Government and the Treasury will engage in good faith with the process. Of course it is difficult, because so far the Chancellor has not been willing to engage with these discussions. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. However, I spoke to Mr Chote last Friday, and if we can reach agreement this week—by the end of June—he is content to proceed this year. If we are all in favour of the proposal in principle and enter into it in good faith, it can be done. Of course, if either side puts up impossible barriers in the discussions with the OBR, it will not happen. But I am up for it, and if the Chancellor was here, we could ask him whether he was too.

David Rutley: I understand what the shadow Chancellor is trying to say, but there are clear timing issues and a clear implementation risk. The OBR is an embryonic, independent body whose credibility we must maintain. We need to focus on the implementation risk.

Edward Balls: All I can say, once again, is that the head of the OBR is content to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman supports this reform, I shall share his frustration about the many months that have been wasted. I could have made this an issue of party political combat or criticism seven, eight or nine months ago, but I have said repeatedly at Treasury questions that I hope the Government will change their mind and engage. He is right that we will be timed out if we cannot make those agreements. If we can agree in the next week, we will have a full two months to work out the details. From my experience, I think that two months would be sufficient to agree on that if there is good faith on both sides.

David Rutley: If the shadow Chancellor is so enthusiastic, why has it taken him three and a half years to bring this proposal to the House in the first place?

Edward Balls: There are moments when the hon. Gentleman engages seriously in these issues, but then he reverts to the Whips’ brief and the kind of behaviour that we expect from others. The truth is that we have been trying to engage on this for nine months. We have been serious, but the Chancellor has been absent. That is the problem.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: I will make a little progress before giving way again.
	In addition to primary legislation, which we need, and a timetable, because there is still time, the third issue is resources and modalities. In particular, who would the reform apply to? The head of the OBR is rightly concerned to ensure that this is a manageable process and that the resource implications can be taken into account. I have proposed that it should apply to governing parties and prospective governing parties. To that end, the legislation I delivered to the Chancellor in October proposed that the OBR should provide
	independent scrutiny and certification of the policy costings of any political party that has at least 5% of seats in the House of Commons, at the request of that party and subject to receiving sufficient information from it.
	I should emphasise that my view has always been that that should be voluntary and that no party should be forced down that road, and that remains my view. Let me be clear that tough, rigorous and independent scrutiny of Labour’s election manifesto is important. I believe that it should be important for Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos, too. In tough times we must all ensure that all our policies are properly costed and funded, because people rightly want to know that the sums add up.

Neil Carmichael: Would this new-found desire for consensus not be strengthened if the shadow Chancellor and the rest of his Front-Bench colleagues admitted that the previous Labour Government played a central role in causing the problem we are dealing with?

Edward Balls: We are trying to have a discussion about an important reform for the future. There have been moments in the life of this House when consensuses have been formed. The Conservatives voted against Bank of England independence in 1998, but in the end they joined the consensus. They voted against the move from self-regulation to statutory regulation in our financial services, but in the end they joined the consensus. I think that there is now a consensus that we should not join the euro, but I wish there was a consensus that we should stay in the European Union, which would be a good thing. On this matter, however, we should be able to form a consensus.
	I can agree that regulation of financial services under the previous Government was not tough enough, but I also say that, if he were here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that he criticised me at very stage, as did the Exchequer Secretary, for being much too tough on financial regulation, rather than too soft. The issue is whether we can form a consensus for the future.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way; he is being very indulgent. First, has Lord Eatwell joined his consensus or is he still opposed to it? Secondly—this is more relevant to the issue of party manifestos—the reality is that had we done this for the last election it would have been irrelevant, because we ended up with a coalition Government. Elections can have different outcomes, so has the shadow Chancellor thought through how the OBR would be able to make estimates in the event of a coalition Government?

Edward Balls: It would be a bit unfair to ask Lord Eatwell, who has returned to academic life and is no longer on our Front Bench in the Lords, for ex-post agreement, although if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that he could join a strong consensus in this House that included a number of Conservative Members, as we have sort of heard today and read elsewhere.
	Coalition is an important issue. Going into the last election there was no OBR, but there were costed proposals in manifestos, and, after the coalition was formed, costings for proposals put before this House
	through the Budget process were audited by the OBR. I do not think the OBR should be drawn into coalition negotiations after elections and manifestos, because it would probably be a mistake to draw it into the political process in that way. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think it is an obstacle to proceeding.

Clive Efford: In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the chair of the OBR referred to this process facilitating coalition discussions, if needed, after an election.

Edward Balls: In that case, the head of the OBR is even more supportive of the proposal than I had thought. My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution.

Julie Hilling: I hope that in the final part of his speech, my right hon. Friend will come to the same conclusion as me, which is that the only reason Government Members could be against this proposal is that they are frightened that they will no longer be able to say that our plans are no good.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend, who regularly advises me on my speeches, can obviously see where this speech is going. I have worked hard to try to secure consensus. Despite the support of many influential figures, I have not yet managed to succeed in making it a cross-party consensus. The reason for that is that, so far, the Chancellor has not engaged. He has refused to co-operate with the discussions. He has not responded to my proposals and letters. He has not even turned up today.
	The question is: why is the Chancellor so reluctant? The reason cannot be the need for primary legislation, because we will support it. It cannot be the timetable because, despite the protestations of Government Members, the head of the OBR confirms that there is time to get this done and to get it done properly. The Chancellor says that he wants to protect OBR independence, but so do we, and the head of the OBR says that this reform need not jeopardise that independence.

Jesse Norman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: No, the hon. Gentleman has already had one go.
	What is the issue? What is going on? I am afraid that it is not hard to conclude that the Chancellor sees this as an opportunity to play political games. [Interruption.] The more that Government Front Benchers laugh, the more we see the political games they want to play.
	We know from the head of the OBR that if an agreement to proceed is reached by the end of June and we can conclude its details by the end of the summer, the OBR can independently audit all our tax and spending commitments for the next general election. It is just a matter of political will. The Chancellor wants to place political traps—through his aides, he very often tells people that he is setting them here and setting them there—but he is not willing to back an important reform in the national interest. What is going on?
	Why is the Chancellor so keen to prevent Labour from having its manifesto independently audited, and so reluctant to put his own party’s manifesto through the same scrutiny? Might it be that, as the head of the
	Institute for Fiscal Studies said at the last Budget, the Chancellor is “getting into bad habits” by making tax changes that appear to bring money into the Exchequer in the short term but have a long-term permanent cost to the public finances; or that, as the IFS said at the last autumn statement, he
	“continues to make specific promises on spending increases while stating that he will keep total spending at the same level”
	and that he “can’t keep doing that”? The risk for the Chancellor is that people draw the conclusion that he wants the freedom to make promises in his manifesto that he knows he cannot afford and will not deliver, while making claims about Labour’s manifesto that he knows to be false, and blocking our desire for proper independent audits.
	I have to tell the Chancellor and other Ministers that we remember the Conservatives’ uncosted promise to abolish inheritance tax last time around; and as for the Liberal Democrats’ promise to end tuition fees—enough said. My advice to the Chancellor, if he had turned up, and to the Chief Secretary, if he were here, would be that if they do not want to be reminded again and again of those mistakes, they should support our proposal and help us to forge the cross-party consensus we need.
	It is hugely disappointing that the Chancellor seems determined to oppose this reform. I have tried hard to persuade him to put politics aside and to do the right thing. Our proposal would be the first ever such independent audit. We believe that it is essential to restore public trust in politics and to improve the nature of our political debate. It is not too late for him to come to the House to say, or to tell his Front-Bench colleagues, that he has changed his mind. I urge the House to vote to persuade the Chancellor to do just that—to change his mind, to stop playing politics and to stop blocking this important reform. If he fails to do so, people will rightly ask: what are they so scared of?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the Minister to move the amendment, I must inform the House that a great many hon. Members obviously wish to speak in the very limited time available. I will therefore put a limit on Back-Benchers’ speeches of six minutes, which may well be reduced later if they take many interventions and speak for much longer than six minutes. I hope that hon. Members will behave with courtesy to others and keep their speeches short.

Nicky Morgan: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“recognises the important role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in producing independent forecasts for the economy and the public finances, and the value this has had in restoring trust in official forecasts; notes that the OBR is a newly independent institution and judges that it would not be appropriate to involve it in party political matters at its first election; notes the comments made by the Chairman of the OBR, Robert Chote, in a letter dated 15 January 2014 to the House of Commons Treasury Committee that ‘to embark on this exercise in a rush, or with insufficient resources, could be very disruptive to the parties and very damaging to the OBR’; and supports the view expressed in that letter that it is ‘better to consider these issues at the beginning of the next Parliament’.”
	I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is disappointed that I am opening for the Government in this debate. I must say that I have only been in this House for just over four years, but it is always true in politics that there is a first time for everything. This afternoon, the shadow Chancellor accused the Government of playing political games and called for cross-party consensus, so there is a first time for everything and we heard it here first. The most sensible thing that he said in his speech was to offer the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) a job as his speech writer, so let us hope that his future speeches are dramatically improved.
	The shadow Chancellor made his views on this matter very clear to the House, so I will begin by answering him with equal clarity. The Government do not believe that the OBR should cost the Labour party’s, or indeed any Opposition party’s, manifesto commitments for the election next year.

Andrew Love: In an effort to keep the tone of consensus so admirably set by the shadow Chancellor, will she accept that the amendment she is currently moving is selective in the quotes that it gives from the OBR, giving the strong impression that it is opposed to this, when clearly, it is in favour?

Nicky Morgan: As I will come on to say, I do not think that the quotations in the amendment or the amendment itself are in any way selective. The amendment sets out the reasons why the Government are not supporting the Opposition’s motion. It does so very clearly, and the OBR, in its letter, sets out very clearly the reasons why it is not at this stage ready to cost the Opposition parties’ manifestos in the way that is wanted.

Andrew Love: The reality is that the Government are trying to hide behind the OBR. The OBR is clearly in favour of the move, and although the Government are at liberty to say what they truly feel, let them be honest when we are trying to have a consensus in the debate.

Nicky Morgan: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep to the consensual tone that the shadow Chancellor, often with great difficulty, tried to strike during this debate. The letter from Robert Chote makes it very clear that these issues would be better discussed at the start of the next Parliament. The reality is that, actually, the Opposition are looking for a fig leaf for their lack of an economic plan. That is the reality of the motion.

Edward Balls: I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, who told me that if the House agrees to proceed, with Government support, by the end of June, he would be content, comfortable and pleased to proceed with the reform this year. So when the Minister says that he is against this reform, could she just correct the record, because I believe that to be incorrect?

Nicky Morgan: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to have a conversation with the head of the OBR, but we do not know the details of that conversation; if he is going to release a transcript, I would be very interested to read it. In fact, the letter dated 15 January makes it very clear that
	“To embark on this exercise in a rush, or with insufficient resources, could be very disruptive for the parties and very damaging to the OBR.”
	Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he wants it to be damaging to the OBR? I do not think that he does.

Jesse Norman: On the topic of misinformation, does the Minister share my surprise that the shadow Chancellor should have misrepresented the position of the Institute for Government on this, when he suggested that it was giving up on the idea of a reform of this kind in this Parliament? In fact, what it said—it was an expert judgment— was that:
	“More feasible than making any hasty change…would be to consider this option…during the five-year review…due to take place in 2015.”
	Does she not share my view that the shadow Chancellor should be invited to correct the record on what he said about that?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that very good point. He has eloquently set out the misrepresentation by the shadow Chancellor of what was said by the Institute for Government. I am sure that perhaps through later speakers and in the winding-up speech the Opposition will have a chance to correct the record.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I am going to make some progress.
	As our amendment makes very clear, we are not suggesting that the issues that the shadow Chancellor’s proposals present are insurmountable, but we do believe very firmly that the independence and operation of the OBR is critical. We need to make sure that independence and impartiality is preserved, and as such, Parliament would need time to scrutinise the proposals properly and the OBR still needs time to establish itself fully as an independent fiscal watchdog before being drawn into the political heart of a general election.
	Let me turn to the situation that the Government inherited in 2010. First, it is worth reminding the Chamber of exactly why and when the OBR came into existence. Hon. Members will need no reminding of the economic inheritance left to this Government by the Labour party, and on taking office we recognised the need to act quickly in the short term to establish our country’s economic credibility for the long term. The creation of the OBR was vital in that respect.
	Back in 2010, our country urgently needed a full and independent assessment of just how bad the problem was because, again and again, the possibility of fiddling figures was tempting, and some would argue that that temptation had been responsible for some of the greatest fiscal policy mistakes of the past 40 years.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the slightly odd things about the Minister’s line of argument is that in its initial reports the OBR predicted that growth would be much faster than turned out to be the case, which suggests that the situation then was not quite as dire in the OBR’s view as the Minister is trying to suggest. What happened, surely, was that Government policies then crushed growth.

Nicky Morgan: I listen to the hon. Lady in debate after debate trying to reinvent fiscal history as we have seen it over the past four or five years. The motion before the House and the moves of the shadow Chancellor, are a desperate attempt to do that. As we have seen in the Labour party political strategy 2015, which was recently leaked to a Sunday newspaper, Labour has to rebuild its credibility on the economy. This debate is a blatant attempt to do just that.

Brooks Newmark: I asked the shadow Chancellor this question but perhaps my right hon. Friend will answer. Does she find it strange that the shadow Chancellor, who said that he does not want to politicise things, did not see fit to bring this matter up for three and a half years? Suddenly the polls are saying that the Opposition have no economic credibility whatsoever, and he tables this motion and says, “Gosh. Why don’t we have all of our manifestos audited?” Is that a little strange?

Nicky Morgan: It would be a little strange, but the shadow Chancellor and the Opposition have woken up to the need to rebuild their fiscal credibility as the election approaches. Of course they had 13 years to introduce an Office for Budget Responsibility, but no move was made.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister confirm how much more the Government are borrowing compared with what they planned?

Nicky Morgan: A lot less than the Labour party would have done had it been in government—[Interruption.] I thank the shadow Chancellor for the applause; that is very kind.
	The creation of the OBR has meant that for the first time we have a truly independent assessment of the state of the nation’s finances. As the Chancellor noted in his Budget this March, it is to its credit that
	“we now take it for granted that the figures presented at this Dispatch Box are not fiddled but fair and independent.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 781.]
	By giving the OBR power to produce the official forecast, we have managed to remove many of the risks of the past and put the UK’s fiscal policy at the cutting edge of international best practice. The IMF said that
	“strong fiscal institutions can enhance the credibility of consolidation plans”
	and the shadow Chancellor wrote to Robert Chote affirming:
	“Over the last three years, the Office for Budget Responsibility has become an established part of the framework of British economic policy with broad-based and cross-party support.”
	I am sure that—it is not often I say this—we all agree wholeheartedly with the shadow Chancellor. It is also worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members that when the OBR was set up four years ago, it was deliberately designed to ensure that it would be independent and could steer clear of political wrangling. That independence and impartiality is crucial.

Marcus Jones: My right hon. Friend is talking about the credibility that the OBR is building. Bearing in mind the political knockabout we have had today, the bogus calls from the shadow Chancellor,
	and the clear party politics being played, does she think that it would damage the OBR’s credibility if we entered into the plan that the shadow Chancellor is offering?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One big issue that the Opposition have not addressed is that if this change were to be brought in without proper consideration, it would mean changes to the way civil servants work. That is something we value greatly in this country, and we would have to consider that issue when scrutinising any legislation.

Marcus Jones: Is it not telling that the shadow Chancellor gave no commitment to carry on with this, should, God forbid, we get a Labour Government and a Labour Chancellor?

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who, as usual, talks complete economic sense, unlike the Labour party.
	As academic evidence noted at the time of the OBR’s creation, it is vital that there should not
	“even be a scintilla of doubt…about the OBR’s independence and impartiality, as negative perceptions may undermine the OBR’s reputation, requiring a major effort at changing such perceptions”.
	Unfortunately, the Opposition’s proposal not only presents a risk to that impartiality, but raises several difficult practical questions, which I shall go through briefly.

Clive Efford: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the shadow Chancellor wrote to the Chancellor last October. How many meetings have Ministers had with the chair of the OBR to discuss this issue in the intervening period?

Nicky Morgan: As the hon. Gentleman will know, meetings held by Ministers are published in the normal way. I cannot give him a specific number, but a list of meetings is published in the usual way.

Clive Efford: In that case, the right hon. Lady is indicating that these discussions have taken place and that there have been meetings at which this issue has been discussed. If so, did the chair of the OBR indicate whether, if a consensus could be reached before the end of June, he could deliver these budget assessments before the general election?

Nicky Morgan: I certainly did not indicate that. It is to be expected that Treasury Ministers will meet the head of the OBR and that various matters will be discussed, and we received a clear letter from him about the motion and the proposals before us today.
	I want about to talk about the practical questions that would require much greater scrutiny in the future. First, as I mentioned, the Opposition do not seem to have assessed how their proposal might compromise the OBR’s ability to avoid being drawn into political debate or the real danger that such a change could undermine its perceived independence and, by extension, the credibility of the UK’s official forecasts.

Andrew Love: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will make some progress, because I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman twice.
	Secondly, the Opposition do not seem to have acknowledged that think-tanks such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research already have a long and distinguished track record in providing costings to parties in the run-up to elections. This, then, is another example of the Opposition asking the public—hard-working taxpayers—to stump up for something that already works effectively.

Mark Garnier: The Minister raises an important point about the cost, and it is worth bearing it in mind that the Dutch Central Planning Bureau, which does this for nine political parties in Holland, has about 350 members of staff. Has the Treasury estimated how much it would cost to resource it properly?

Nicky Morgan: I am not aware that we have done any estimates, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Dutch Central Planning Bureau—the figure I have is 170, but he says 350—and the American Congressional Budget Office has 250 members of staff. The point is that the Opposition are asking hard-working taxpayers to pay more money to staff up the OBR quickly so that it can certify and sign off their economic plan, such as it is.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister mentions the experience in the Netherlands, so I draw her attention to the comments of Peter Riddell, the director of the Institute for Government:
	“As experience in the Netherlands shows, such a system has helped improve the quality of policies and encourages a more informed public debate as parties become more open about the costs of their proposals.”
	What is wrong with that?

Nicky Morgan: I will come to the overall principle of having the OBR look at parties’ manifestos, but how long has it taken the Dutch Central Planning Bureau to get to that stage? If the hon. Gentleman has the answer, I would be interested to hear it.
	Thirdly, there are genuine practical considerations that must be weighed in the balance. The Opposition do not seem to acknowledge that rather than producing costings of Government policies, the OBR certifies the costings already produced. The OBR, which currently employs only 19 members of staff, plus three members of the Budget Responsibility Committee, would need significant additional resources and a range of specialist skills in order to take on such a role. Have the Opposition considered where it would recruit from?

Edward Balls: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I have discussed every issue she has raised with the head of the OBR, whose view is that they do not provide a reason not to proceed, so long as the Government support the proposal. The Minister is setting out why she and the Government do not support it, but they should not hide behind the head of the OBR. He is happy to proceed; it is she who is blocking it.

Nicky Morgan: As far as Government Members are aware, the letter of 15 January put the comments of the head of the OBR on the record. The right hon. Gentleman
	has not made any transcript of any such conversation available. We do not know what was discussed or what reservations were expressed by the head of the OBR.

Edward Balls: I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, in preparation for this debate. The right hon. Lady, who has stepped in for the Chancellor, is quoting a letter from January. Surely, to prepare for this debate, she would have spoken to the OBR in the days before. If he has changed his views since last Friday and contradicts what he told me then, I will withdraw my comments. Did the Minister speak to him; is he content to proceed, or has she not bothered to have the conversation?

Nicky Morgan: It is not a question of not bothering to have the conversation. If the right hon. Gentleman has had a conversation, where is the transcript and why has it not been released to the House? If he has a transcript, we would like to see it. We would like to know what the head of the OBR said about—[Interruption.] If I allow the shadow Chancellor to stand up again, will he tell us how many additional staff the head of the OBR said he would need to recruit, where he is going to find them from and how quickly they can be appointed? That is the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument.

Edward Balls: Is the right hon. Lady really saying that I am misleading the House? I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, and he said to me that if the Government agree by the end of June, we can proceed and these obstacles can be overcome. In his view, the issues that the Minister is raising about resourcing and independence can all be resolved if she chooses to do so. Is she really saying that I am misleading—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions must be brief; the point has been made. I call the Minister.

Nicky Morgan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We are back to old social government: no notes, no transcript, nothing. If the right hon. Gentleman has exchanged correspondence or if he has a transcript of the conversation, he should put it before the House if he wants to bring it into the debate.

Andrew Love: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make some progress.

Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. Lady. There is a transcript. After the production of the letter of 15 January, Robert Chote appeared before the Treasury Committee, where we interrogated him on all these issues. He confirmed that if all these issues could be resolved, he would be content to go ahead.

Nicky Morgan: I prefer to take notice of comments that are on the record, such as the following from Robert Chote. On 4 April 2014—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor should listen. This is what the head of the OBR said:
	“The Chancellor perfectly reasonably has said he doesn’t think this is the right time to do this… The reasons he has cited are it’s
	the first general election we’ve existed…you don’t want to throw the OBR as a relatively young body into a politically contested territory now.”

David Rutley: Having recruited teams—very sizeable teams—in the past, I know it takes time to recruit talent. These are not unskilled people—[Interruption.] No.

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

David Rutley: May I ask the question, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman should make his intervention and ignore anything else, rather than trying to answer it all. A brief intervention will do, Mr Rutley.

David Rutley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.
	I was making the point that it takes time to recruit skilled individuals, particularly in economic forecasting.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is entirely right; it will take time to recruit skilled members of staff to carry out the project that the Opposition say the OBR should be able to do within a matter of months.

Jesse Norman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr Chote also made it very clear that his job would be made additionally complicated by the run-up to a general election? Is she surprised that the shadow Chancellor comes here to present his views with no form of back-up, official record, transcripts or anything on which this House might properly rely?

Nicky Morgan: Nothing in politics surprises me any more, so I am not surprised that the shadow Chancellor has done that. I am just surprised that he thinks that the House is going to buy it.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again; she is giving up a great deal of her time. Robert Chote appeared before the Treasury Committee, and, while he did say that if he were pressured to an unbelievable extent the work would be possible, he made very clear that he was not happy with the idea of having to press it too quickly. Moreover, the resources required would be astronomical, and it would be made up of temporary members of staff—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions are not opportunities for speeches. They are supposed to be brief, and Members in all parts of the House should adhere to that convention.

Nicky Morgan: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and the member of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), have eloquently described the reservations expressed to the Committee by the head of the OBR. On page 7 of his letter of 15 January, paragraph 4 states:
	“Resource constraints in the OBR and responsible departments would argue for a longer process than that undertaken ahead of Budgets and Autumn Statements, so proposals might be required two or three months ahead of manifesto publication.”
	Mr Chote went on to say:
	“a May election date with April manifesto publications would imply that the work of certifying manifesto costings would need to be undertaken alongside the Budget and preceding Autumn Statement, when the OBR and responsible departments are at or near their peak workloads.”
	In that part of the letter, he was referring mostly to resources.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I want to make some progress.

Edward Balls: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, for the last time.

Edward Balls: I spoke to the head of the OBR. He believes that if he is to cost manifestos in time, he will need to start in the autumn, he will need agreement by the end of June, and he will need the details to have been worked out by the end of August. The Minister is obfuscating. It is she who is blocking this, not the head of the OBR.

Nicky Morgan: Let me say for the last time that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to pray in aid evidence from a conversation that he had last week, he should have put it in writing and presented it to the House, or placed it in the Library.
	If we ask the OBR to recruit additional staff, what will they do between elections? I do not know whether Labour Members have considered the fact that what they propose would involve a radical change in the rules governing civil service contact with the Opposition. I do not know whether they have fully explored the primary legislation that would be required to make this happen, just as I do not know whether they have considered how the demands of Opposition parties would be balanced against other Government priorities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nicky Morgan: Yes, of course I will.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I think that the shadow Chancellor has just proved the Government’s case. These references to private conversations are politicising the OBR in exactly the way that frightens the Government. I think that the shadow Chancellor is hoist with his own petard.

Nicky Morgan: As always, my hon. Friend has summed up the position brilliantly and eloquently. I was particularly impressed when he intervened on the shadow Chancellor and forced him to admit that the purpose of the Opposition’s proposal was to stop the shadow Cabinet making spending commitments left right and centre.
	I was referring to other Government priorities. I am thinking of, for example, Budget preparations. The time when those preparations are being made is one
	of the busiest times of the year for the OBR, during which specialist and other staff resources are already occupied.
	As I have already said today, what I will not do is stand here and say that the problems are insurmountable, or that a solution could not be found in future. However, if we want to ensure that the OBR’s independence and influence are preserved, the issue merits much fuller and much more careful consideration than is represented by the Opposition’s proposals. That brings me to one of the most important points. We need to remember that the OBR is a very young organisation. We believe that it is doing an excellent job—as, clearly, does the shadow Chancellor—but it has not, as yet, been subject to any major review.
	It was announced in last year’s autumn statement that, as required by legislation, the OBR would launch an external review of its publications during the current year, and that its findings would be published in September. The Government have also announced that following the outcome of that review, and following the general election, they will hold their own review of the OBR. I think—I am sure other Members will agree—that until those reviews of the OBR’s current responsibilities have been completed, we should not throw extra responsibilities at it. I consider it sensible for us to wait until after the OBR’s review, our review, and the OBR’s first general election before considering this issue further.
	Unlike the Labour party, I do not want to pre-empt the OBR’s review, but I think it safe to say that, through its creation, the coalition has changed the way in which Budgets are made for ever and has created an independent office that has restored public confidence in the numbers that underpin the Budget. In its first four years, the OBR’s independent forecasts have supported the credibility of our long-term fiscal plans. Between now and the general election, the OBR should remain focused on doing that job. It should remain focused on ensuring that, as we fix the mess left to us by the Labour party, the numbers underlying our long-term economic plan are correct. That plan is making a real difference.

Andrew Love: Will the Minister give way?

Nicky Morgan: No.
	Inflation is at its lowest level in four and a half years. Employment is at its highest level ever. Just as our deficit is shrinking, our economy is growing, with the recovery balanced across all the main sectors, because of a long-term economic plan being taken forward by the Government and being properly scrutinised by an independent, impartial body. That is how it should stay for the next year. That is why I ask hon. Members to support our amendment.

Geoffrey Robinson: Perhaps it would be correct for me to state at the outset that, in view of the six-minute limit, I do not intend to take any interventions. I hope to confine myself to fewer than six minutes. I will not take an intervention, even from the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), whose interventions so far have been a waste of time. Time is at a premium. On that basis, I will make some progress.
	I do not think that I have heard a more blatant party political set of arguments, electorally inspired, from any Government since I have been in the House. The Government are going against the grain—

Jesse Norman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: No, I am not giving way. I have made that clear already, although not out of any fear of what the hon. Gentleman might say. The Government are afraid, though. They are afraid that, if our proposals before the election were properly and independently costed, as they will be—we will probably try to get it done independently in some other way if we have to—it would give them the credibility that the Government seek to deny them by being misleading and by obfuscating, at which they are experts—the Chancellor in particular, who is not here.
	When we look at what individuals have said about the proposal, it is clear that it is possible—no one has tried harder to secure this than my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Chancellor—to achieve consensus across the House if right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches want it. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who chairs the Treasury Committee, said on 15 October 2013, around the time that my right hon. Friend was writing to the Chancellor on these points:
	“I made clear in the Commons that this should include examining, at their request, the fiscal policies of opposition parties at election time.”
	The whole point is that election time and the run-up to the election is the appropriate time to do this. That is why my right hon. Friend started this in October—nine months ago. It is a complicated, difficult process, but why have we had nothing from the Chancellor since? Why has he refused to engage in that?

Andrew Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I did mention the hon. Gentleman. For that reason, I will take this one intervention.

Andrew Tyrie: Curiously for an Opposition day debate, a bit of consensus seems to be emerging that at least in principle this work should be done, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although of course the work needs to be done at election time, the preparatory discussions to discover what the ground rules should be need to take place in a quiet political climate, not in the run-up to a general election? Therefore, given that for three years both parties have objected to this, the time to get that done would be immediately after a general election.

Geoffrey Robinson: The most useful thing I can do for the hon. Gentleman and the House is to read out in full, to get it on the record, what the head of the OBR has said. In March, just a couple of months ago, he said:
	“I think the key thing that you would need to do would be to ensure that by, say, the early summer”—
	exactly where we are now—
	“you were in a position”—
	he is speaking to Members who are involved in the decision—
	“where even if you did not have the full legislative framework for this sort of thing in place”—
	I think we have that, largely—
	“you would need to have, first, agreement in principle across the parties”,
	which we are striving for, and it is only because the Government perceive it to be against their electoral interests that they are resisting it. It is the most blatant, obvious Government ploy that I have seen since—well, I will not say since when. He said
	“that it was a good idea to do it and, secondly, fairly detailed agreement on what you might think of as the rules of the game: which parties should be involved”—
	my right hon. Friend dealt with that—
	“what scope of policies should you look at; what is the timetable; what would be the involvement of civil servants, and so on.”
	The quotation continues:
	“I think you would need to get that sort of thing in place in the early summer in order for us, for example, to be able to set out and recruit the necessary people over the course of the summer and have all that in place ready to be welcoming customers, so to speak, maybe after the party conferences in the autumn.”
	There is timetable, therefore, but Government Back Benchers are trying to deny it, and they are not playing their role at all. Why are they doing it? There is only one reason, and I shall come back to it in a moment.

David Rutley: rose—

Geoffrey Robinson: I am not giving way.
	I was quoting comments made by Robert Chote on 12 March this year. It is quite clear that this can be done. There is only one obstacle standing in the way: the Government do not want it to happen. It is not that they want it to happen but find it difficult; it is that they do not want it to happen.
	Why do the Government not want it to happen? Let me read what the Chancellor said a couple of years ago when he first set out on this path:
	“I propose to have discussions with Opposition party leaders about whether that is the appropriate thing to do”—
	to have the parties’ election proposals vetted by the OBR—
	“and it would be a legitimate matter for the House to debate”,
	which we are doing today,
	“and decide.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 142.]
	I say, with no disrespect to the two distinguished Ministers on the Treasury Bench, the Exchequer Secretary and the Financial Secretary, that it is a matter of great regret that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary are absent because, having promised that, the Chancellor has refused to engage with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. He has refused to come to the House and debate this with us on the one occasion when we can decide on it, and decide on doing it in the run-up to the election, which is the appropriate time, as Robert Chote himself said: I am reciting his words not in the quotation that I read out, but in another one.
	It is quite clear that this can be done, therefore; Robert Chote has said that it can be done. It is quite clear that the only art left to the Government is sophistry to try to create problems that just do not exist. If they can answer any one of the charges—any of the points made by Robert Chote or my right hon. Friend—then
	let us hear them, because I say, with great respect to the Financial Secretary who opened the debate, that she did not tackle any of that. She said, “Let me put on the record what we inherited.” This is not about that at all, and it is not about the fact we were not satisfied with the OBR in the early years. I was the Member who was most critical of its ability in those years.
	The fact is that the OBR is established now, however, and it is clear from Robert Chote’s comments that he wants to do this. He believes he can do it and he thinks it would be good. It would be good for public debate, for transparency and for politics in this country, yet the Government are denying the public that right and that opportunity to submit parties’ proposals, which are always in the centre of the election debate, for scrutiny. They are denying the public that, and the public will ask why the Government are doing that and they will read between the lines and see that it is a blatant, deliberate attempt to hide from the public the fact that the Labour party’s proposals are coherent, costed and convincing.

Gary Streeter: I want to bring a different point of view to this debate, and a point of principle. I am against this motion in principle, and I hope to clearly set out why. First, however, may I gently say that if I were compiling a list of colleagues in this House who had the skills-mix to bring together a cross-party consensus, I am not sure the shadow Chancellor would be top of my list, in the same way as I would not want to invite King Herod to babysit my children. [Interruption.] I apologise if that is a little harsh, but that idea did not ring true on the Government Benches.
	This debate is about restoring the British electorate’s lost credibility and trust in the political classes, and certainly after our disastrous decision—as I now see it—in 2003 to go to war on a false premise, and after the expenses scandal of 2009, there is no doubt that credibility and trust do need to be restored. I have to say that I do not think this motion is the way to do it, however, because we will never restore trust in ourselves if we are constantly contracting-out to a third party our credibility and integrity. If we are not careful, we will simply become elected go-betweens buying in ideas and policies from independent sources. We have to build up a track record of trustworthiness in our own right.
	The message the motion sends to the British electorate is that we do not trust ourselves in the run-up to next May’s elections to tell them the truth about our financial plans. That is what we are saying; the message we are sending out is that we do not trust ourselves. If we do not trust ourselves to send out a message of credibility and integrity, why on earth should we expect the electorate to have any trust in us? We may have access to the finest brains in the country, who can help to shape our spending plans; none the less, we still cannot be trusted to ensure that those plans are accurate, so we have to get them independently verified. The motion edges us towards accepting that nobody can ever trust a politician on anything without independent verification. I do not want to go there. That is a very slippery slope that I do not want to go down.
	The trouble with subcontracting out to independent organisations is that it undermines the very essence of our democracy: accountability. If my electorate do not
	like me, they can remove me. They might well do so next May—we will see—but at least I am accountable to them. I am afraid that the OBR is not accountable to them. So the answer to the lack of trust in British politics is not to subcontract out our veracity. The answer—it will take a lot of hard work—is simply to tell the truth and stick with it; to make promises and keep them; to check our figures again and again before we set them out, and to make sure they are accurate.

George Mudie: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that the House should not subcontract out; is he saying the same of the Government? If he is saying to the Opposition parties that the OBR cannot vet economic policies, presumably, the same goes for the Government. Is he confirming, therefore, that he would do away with the OBR?

Gary Streeter: I was about to make the point that I hope the OBR will be only a temporary institution. I am probably the only person who thinks that. I was first elected to this House in 1992—not a million years after when the hon. Gentleman was first elected—and my recollection is that, 22 years ago, Treasury figures were trusted and taken almost as gospel. I am not pinning the blame on any particular Government, but the history of certain previous Governments massaging figures and forecasts and announcing the same money over and over again as though it was new money has completely undermined confidence in Treasury forecasts and credibility. Of course, we have also had the 2007-08 crash.
	There is no doubt that the OBR has helped to restore confidence in and the credibility of Treasury figures, not among our electorate, most of whom have never heard of it—they would not know what it was if it hit them in the face—but among opinion-formers and commentators. However, I hope that it is a temporary solution and that we can in due course work our way back to good old-fashioned professional Treasury trustworthiness, like welcoming back an old friend.
	The second reason why I will oppose the motion is that doing this right now would probably mess up the OBR. Changing its mandate would undermine the important work it is already carrying out. Other experienced groups—the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs—pore over our manifestos in the run-up to an election, and they will communicate their findings to the electorate, as they always have done. Why not ask this question? Why stop at the OBR and our financial plans? If we are to subcontract out our veracity, why stop there? Why not ask the Electoral Commission to verify our constitutional proposals? Why not invite NHS England to review our health policies? Why not invite the United Nations to oversee the section in our manifestos on foreign policy? Where will all this end? There is no point in continuing down this road, unless we are saying that although we are elected to do a certain job—to take decisions and to make ourselves accountable to the electorate for the promises we make and the decisions we take—we do not wish to do it any longer.
	If I am saying that this is not the right way to restore lost confidence and trust, what is? Most of us recognise over our lifetimes that when a reputation is lost, it takes
	a long time to put it right and a long period of penance. But there is no short-cut: it is about doing the right thing and sticking with it. In our case, it is about saying one thing and doing it: delivering on our promises, testing our figures before we release them—transparency is the key to this—collectively showing our workings and not just the end policy. There is no short-cut. We have to slog our way back to respectability.
	I understand the reasons behind the motion, but I really believe that it is ill-conceived and would not help us to restore credibility and lost trust and confidence among the British electorate.

Clive Efford: I have been listening to the debate and I really do wonder what the Government are afraid of. We are talking about the democratic process. The most important people in this debate are the general public: the people who vote. What can possibly be wrong with making them better informed about the economic policies of the parties that would be in government? Opposition Members hear a lot from the Government about economic policy and the “long-term economic plan”. The Minister mentioned it four times in her speech—she may be reprimanded for not mentioning it enough. That is more than a hint about what is going to be at the heart of the debate at the next general election; we know that the economy is going to feature prominently. We also know that many people find the economic arguments put forward during an election period very complex. Some people like bits from one side and bits from the other side of the argument. They may like the idea of tax cuts but prefer their public services to be kept intact. They may like the idea of a national insurance reduction but they love their national health service. So how do they decide who is telling the truth and whose sums add up?
	The Tories have been making outrageous claims about Labour’s spending commitments. We say that they are misleading people, and to prove it we are prepared to put our proposals to an independent audit by the OBR in order to say whether or not the sums add up. That is the simple element of this argument. The crux of it is: are the Government prepared to put their economic policies to an independent audit so that they can be put before the public at an election and the public can be better informed when they make up their minds? The time has come for the major parties, particularly those that might wish to take part in television debates and be taken seriously, to have their proposals independently audited by the OBR.
	The OBR scrutinises Government tax policies and expenditure policies on behalf of the public, so why would we not do this for would-be Governments when there is a general election? Surely the public have a right to be as well informed as possible. The chair of the OBR agrees with that. In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, he said:
	“As we have discussed, I believe that independent scrutiny of pre-election policy proposals could contribute to better policy making, to a more informed public debate, and could help facilitate coalition formation when party programmes need to be reconciled.”
	So he is clear that considerable benefits would come from going through this process.
	I do not think that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would mislead the House—I know he would not. He has had discussions with the chair—

John Glen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Efford: No, I am trying to be disciplined because I have been in here too many times when people have taken loads of interventions and others have not had a chance to speak.
	The Government have had plenty of time to have meetings about this issue over a long period of time. We have challenged Ministers about this, asking whether they have discussed it during any meetings. They have said in the past that they are committed to audits, so it is extraordinary that the Government cannot refer to any meeting where they have discussed this issue with the chairman of the OBR. That is an absolute disgrace; this is about having a better informed debate at a general election and they should be ashamed of themselves. Clearly, they have completely ignored this issue because they do not want to go through the process. As for the arguments about specialist skills, the chairman of the OBR is saying that he can deliver on this if we can get an agreement in principle now and if we can start to go through the details by the end of the summer. He is the first person we would go to if we were trying to set this up, so if he is saying—

David Rutley: rose—

Clive Efford: I will not give way, and I have explained why. If the chair of the OBR is saying, “I can do this if you make this decision now”, who is to question that? It should not be the Government, who have an ulterior motive in not having their economic policies and, more importantly, the misinformation they put out about their opponents scrutinised. If the Opposition’s budgets were examined, the Government would no longer be able to misinform people about those budgets. That is the truth of why the Government are ducking out of this. It is incredible for the Minister to stand there as an elected Member in this House and question the veracity of evidence that has been given to the Select Committee. The chairman of the OBR has been before the Select Committee and clearly indicated that he is favour of the proposal, and that has been questioned in this House. I find that absolutely incredible. It just shows us how much the Tory Government are wriggling on a hook to try to weasel out of this proposal.
	The public will make up their own minds from a better informed position if we were to take this proposal forward. Only a Government who is up to no good could oppose the proposal. The time has come for this proposal to be taken forward, the OBR should be given the legal power to audit our plans, and the Government should get out of the way and allow it to happen.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government are absolutely right to be cautious about allowing the Office for Budgetary Responsibility to be caught in the middle of a political trap. The virtue of the OBR is its political impartiality. It was wonderful to hear the shadow Chancellor—it is always wonderful to
	hear the shadow Chancellor in his marvellous speeches—explaining how cross-party he was. I looked up a quotation in which he said how terrible it was to brief against fellow MPs. He said that it was snake-like politics in which he would never indulge. That created a wonderful image of him as this purer-than-the-driven-snow gentlemanly creature who would never indulge in underhand party politics and who solely has the national interest at heart. How maligned he must feel when he reads newspapers that sometimes suggest otherwise. It is one of the great tragedies of modern politics that that should be allowed.
	Unfortunately, underlying the shadow Chancellor’s speech was sheer party politics. The OBR is there to deal with that which is entirely governmental: that is to say with the Budget, which is passed through a Finance Bill that is a matter of fact, and with an autumn statement that also deals with facts. Against that, we have a series of promises, propositions and theories that do not come out at two clear points of the year, but dribble out, sometimes in draughty halls in obscure parts of the country, as shadow Ministers go off and make spending commitments to meet the latest demand of a newspaper article or a difficult question asked by a journalist. Depending on who we ask, the bankers’ bonus tax has been spent 11 times.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no one has the good order of the OBR—its credibility and independence—more at heart than the OBR itself, and it is in favour of this proposal? Will he therefore accept that it is Government opposition that is stopping it happening?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That rather proves my point. Once again, we see the OBR immediately being drawn in to political controversy, and I want to free it from that.

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend is a great wordsmith, but I want to lance the boil of what the Opposition keep saying. The OBR is not in favour of the proposal. The OBR used the word “could”.; it said not “it would”, but “it could”. It is the word “could” that is of importance here, and the OBR has not supported what the Opposition are saying.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is extremely wise in his observation. The OBR, which is a non-party political body, has said in response to a request from the shadow Chancellor, a man of the greatest dignity who should be taken seriously by Members from all parts of the House, that if that is the will of Parliament, it will do it.

Edward Balls: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: How could I refuse?

Edward Balls: I shall test the hon. Gentleman’s support for my integrity. In March, the head of the OBR told the Select Committee that if the proposal was agreed across parties by early summer, he would be content to proceed, which he confirmed to me last Friday. Is the hon. Gentleman, unlike the Minister, content to accept my word that the views of the head of the OBR in March are still the same today?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is being used up. In fairness, interventions must be brief.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept the shadow Chancellor’s word without question, but it is a conditional. If there were cross-party support, then a statutory body would do what a statute required of it. That is the simplest expression of the constitutional position that would apply to any statutory body. The idea that a statutory body would say, “If the whole of Parliament tells us to do something, we will blow a raspberry,” is so absurd as to be a point beneath the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman, who is far too clever to make so childish a point.
	So let us come back to the real issue, the real curse of asking the OBR to do this. The spending plans of the Opposition are moveable feasts. They vary as circumstances vary. When I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, I thought the first part of his answer may have had some truth in it—that he wanted to be in absolute charge of where his party was. That may be the case, not only for him but for all shadow Chancellors at all times, and not just shadow Chancellors but whoever is responsible for economic policy among the Liberal Democrats, which is even more debatable than who is in charge in the Labour party. I am not entirely sure whether it is the President of the Board of Trade or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; I am not sure that the Lib Dems have decided, or, if they have decided, whether this has been accepted by the brethren.
	A number of people make spending promises. If we ask the OBR to audit them, we make the OBR a matter of political debate because it would be approving expenditure promises that would not necessarily be part of the Budget if the party making them were elected. Are you to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that only promises made by a shadow Chancellor count? Are you to exclude the leader of the party, who has recently made certain promises to reform the benefit system? Or should you do it on the basis of GP appointments, which the leader has promised will occur within 48 hours? Has this been approved by the shadow Chancellor? Is it official policy or was it the whim of the Leader of the Opposition when he was caught out in a television studio? How are we to know? Are you so to restrict the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary or Education Secretary when they make statements? The shadow Chancellor is nodding. Perhaps this is not the bipartisan approach that we were led to believe in during his marvellous speech but a power grab by the right hon. Gentleman within his own party.
	This House of Commons, this noble House, this honourable House, is debating whether the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) should be in charge of the Labour party. This is really a debate about his leadership ambitions. They may be a good thing. Members of the Labour party ought to decide that, better than I possibly could. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the support. I do not know whether I would get many votes if I stood for leader of the Labour party, but never mind.

Andrew Love: You never know.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I don’t think they are that desperate yet, although the time may come.
	The nature of opposition—and it is as true of Conservatives in opposition as it is of socialists—is that the pressure of events means that spending commitments and taxation commitments change. Oppositions are not in command of events, so the proposals that they make cannot be as solid as those enunciated by a Government. That would fatally undermine the position of the OBR because it would be dealing with day-to-day political controversy, and inherent in forecasting is the inaccuracy of forecasting. The OBR is respected more because it is independent than because it is right. Few economists manage to make forecasts more than one year out with any consistent accuracy, so the idea that the OBR were giving an imprimatur or even for that matter a nihil obstat to Opposition policies would create false certainty. It would politicise the OBR and it would have the sole advantage of making the right hon. Gentleman leader of the Labour party.

George Mudie: Before Members make their address, they should answer this question for the general public to hear—do they agree to use the OBR to examine the tax and spending policies of the major political parties? If Members are against that, they should tell the public. That is seen by the OBR, the Treasury Committee and the House as the main purpose of the exercise. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) said he would do away with the OBR, but that is what the OBR does for the Government. If Members are moved by the non-existent Chancellor and the speeches from the Government Front Bench, they should ask what they are being talked into. They are being talked into reducing the ability of the general public to take informed decisions on the economic policies of the political parties—all political parties—at general election time.

Jonathan Ashworth: My hon. Friend is speaking with his typical eloquence. Is it not the case that for all the arguments that we have heard about what Mr Chote may or may not have said and all the arguments about timing and what Bills can or cannot be brought before Parliament, Tory Front Benchers do not want the proposal to be implemented because they put Tory party interest ahead of the national interest?

George Mudie: I follow my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in not wishing to inflame matters or become party political. We are speaking about an issue that is very important to the general public and a first step to giving Back-Bench Members an input into Budgets, as the Americans, the Dutch and other Parliaments do, whereas we are simply used as voting fodder when a Chancellor presents a Budget. This is a first step and it is an important step.
	It is outrageous that we are turning the motion down to protect the OBR. Members should not allow the Government to hide behind the OBR or to besmirch and lessen the reputation of Robert Chote. Robert Chote and his colleagues have carried out extremely important work. Their forecasts are not always right, but they make them sincerely and within the finite probabilities. The OBR is a very important institution. When it was first established, I thought the Chancellor had taken an extremely significant step, though not a big enough one.
	Sadly, the Minister and some of my colleagues on the Treasury Committee have taken quotes out of Robert Chote’s letter of January and the minutes of the March meeting of the Treasury Committee. That should not be done. Robert Chote was asked by the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee:
	“Can I begin by asking you, do you in principle support the OBR having a role in the costing of political parties’ manifestos in the run-up to an election?”
	Robert Chote replied:
	“Yes, I do.”
	He went on to say that this route
	“does offer the prospect of improving the quality of policy development for individual parties and it potentially improves the quality of public debate in the run-up to an election”.
	The Chairman, putting his finger on the real issue, which is time, asked Mr Chote:
	“Do you think that you could get this job done between now and the general election?”
	Mr Chote replied:
	“It would be difficult but by no means impossible”
	and he spelled out that the decisions to enable the OBR to do that must be taken by this summer.

John Glen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Mudie: No. I shall finish my point. I have quoted what Mr Chote said, but Back-Bench Members do not necessarily have a full picture of all the details and discussions that have gone on. For the Minister to say to the shadow Chancellor, “I will only believe this if you put it in writing” is quite disgraceful.
	Twice, to my knowledge, Robert Chote was asked in the Committee whether he wanted to go ahead with this idea, whether he thinks it would harm his reputation and whether he has time to do it before the election—we have gone through the whole gamut—and the answer on each occasion was yes.
	The Minister used the word “insuperable”, which she got from Robert Chote’s January letter, but Mr Chote did not say that the problem was insuperable: he said that the issues that she has spelt out “are certainly not insuperable”. The distinguished Chair of the Treasury Committee lured out of Robert Chote the information that tells us what is going on. He said:
	“As you know, Mr Chote, I have been very keen on this idea for 20 years”,
	and that was accepted; he has been. He then said:
	“Have you…spoken to the Chancellor”
	on this, and Robert Chote said that he had, but the Chancellor was not in favour of it for this or that reason. But then—and this goes to the core of why we have a space on the Treasury Bench—the Chair said:
	“Given my enthusiasm for this idea, George’s position has been consistent but always unsupportive.”
	We are not talking about there being no time to do it this year; the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want it to happen, full stop. In other words, he does not want the public to go into a general election having the full, objective, independent assessment of all the political parties’ economic policies, and that is a disgrace.

Mike Thornton: Knowing that every poll, every doorstep inquiry in May, and every e-mail that I get shows that the public feel unable fully to trust Labour with the economy, and knowing that the OBR believes it would be difficult and time consuming at the moment to do what the shadow Chancellor proposes, I hope that it is not the shadow Chancellor’s sole concern today to bolster his uncertain economic credibility.
	I understand that the shadow Chancellor likes to copy eminently sensible Lib Dem policies such as the mansion tax, the fact that we published the costs and savings on our proposals in 2010—for example, showing how we would afford our eminently sensible increase in the tax allowance—

Dominic Raab: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Lib Dem proposals on the mansion tax and the further extensions of the personal allowance have been roundly rubbished by the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research?

Mike Thornton: I do not know those details. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s word for it that they have been rubbished, but I personally support an increase in the tax allowance, so that no one on the minimum wage would pay any income tax. It seems silly to me to have a minimum wage and then charge people tax on it. But that is my opinion, of course.
	I also agree with the Chief Secretary, who unfortunately is not here today, that auditing manifestos is well worth further consideration. But as the OBR said, although possible it would be difficult to do in a timely and sensible fashion before the next election. I remember that in 1997 the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) successfully persuaded the electorate of his prudence. Despite this latest attempt to do so, I feel that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will not follow in his right hon. Friend’s footsteps, so let us commit ourselves to honestly publishing proper and well worked out costings for the proposals of all parties in the House, doing it ourselves, and spending the money ourselves, but follow that up—

Andrew Love: rose—

Mike Thornton: I was just coming to an end, but I will give way.

Andrew Love: I am sorry; I did not realise the hon. Gentleman was coming to an end, but I thank him for giving way. In the context of the competitive and confrontational elections that we have, where Opposition policies are always rubbished and called into question, does the hon. Gentleman think there is a role for an independent, credible organisation at least to shed some light on those policy proposals?

Mike Thornton: That suggestion certainly has some merit. After the next election, when we have given—

Stephen Mosley: It is not true that there are no independent organisations. The IFS and the Institute of Economic Affairs will already carry
	out independent audits. There is no need to give the job to a statutory body, because independent bodies already exist to do it.

Mike Thornton: The IFS costed our proposals in 2010, and that is an eminently sensible approach. It can be argued, however, that the OBR is seen as very successful. I am glad that now all parties, instead of just one, think that it is a useful independent organisation.
	We should look to do this after the next general election, when the OBR will have plenty of time and resources to do it properly without having to rush the job and hire people quickly. As we have noticed from what is happening to our IT today, when one tries to rush something and does not do it properly, it does not work properly. I commend the idea and philosophy to the House, but this needs to wait until after the next general election.

Sheila Gilmore: Having listened to this debate, there seems to be confusion, or perhaps a conflict of views, on the part of Government Members. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) was at least consistent in his position, which was not that it is a bad time to do this but that it is a bad idea altogether. Indeed, he did not seem to be all that keen on having an OBR at all. The position of Government Front Benchers, not just today but when this has been raised before, has generally been to say, “Yes, it probably could be quite a good idea and it should be done at some point in the future”—it is always “at some point in the future”. Those two positions do not hold together.
	A lot of the reasons that have been given for not doing this now do not stand up to scrutiny. The Minister told us that it is a difficult time of year because it would run into the autumn statement and the Budget. If we are going to continue to have fixed-term Parliaments with May general elections, that will be a problem every single time, not just now. Another argument is that it is too difficult because there is not enough time to recruit people and get something like this off the ground. When the OBR was set up on an interim basis, it got off the ground very quickly. We were told, even at that stage, that we should accept its ability to produce a report, as it did in advance of the emergency Budget in 2010, that was a good and credible piece of work. That happened between May and June. The arguments about there not being enough time to get people in place do not stand up.
	Much as I always enjoy the mellifluous tones of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who can get carried away with his own rhetoric, what he said was not correct. He suggested that we would be asking the OBR to look at every single proposal that came up over a period of time and any changes to it. That is not what the motion says. It asks for the auditing of proposals included as part of a general election manifesto. That is not the same as looking at policies that may change because there has been further debate or, as he suggested, through force of circumstance because there are changes out there in the real economy. By the time we are coming to the eve of an election, parties will be producing manifestos with specific proposals. Some of the things that have been debated and proposed
	by Labour will make it into the manifesto, while perhaps some will not. It is important that those proposals are audited so that there can be some judgment on them.
	Despite all the protestations we have heard from the Government Benches about how the OBR must in no way be compromised or brought into the political fray, I have no doubt that as we get closer to the general election campaign, if we are not already in it, we will hear Government spokespeople say, “The OBR says this”, “The OBR says that” or “The OBR has audited our figures.” On that basis the OBR will already have been brought into the political fray, so why not do it properly and have it audit the manifestos of the parties that can form a Government? If Government Members do indeed think that that is a good idea in principle, let us just get on with it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The time remaining for contributions to this debate is very tight. In order to ensure that all Members who wish to speak can contribute, it is necessary to reduce the time limit to five minutes. I hope that it will not be necessary to reduce it further, but that will depend on interventions.

Jesse Norman: I speak in part as a member of the Treasury Committee and as a member of the council of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and a senior fellow of Policy Exchange.
	One of the tragedies of modern politics is that so many issues are no longer discussed soberly and on their merits but are viewed purely through the prism of party politics. The present subject of debate—whether, and if so how, manifesto policies should be costed by the OBR—is one of potentially great importance that could shape political debate across many years and many future Parliaments.
	The shadow Chancellor, who is no longer in his place, despite his strictures about the Government Benches, has attempted to politicise this debate and drag Robert Chote’s name into it. Let us simply say that expert opinion on the issue is divided. The Institute for Government has described the pre-election timing as “hasty”, and the IFS has questioned the very idea of the OBR undertaking this role. As I will show, there are several crucial issues of principle as well as practice. They must be addressed before legislation can be considered.
	First, there are practical matters of funding and staffing. Let us not forget that the motion states that manifestos should be costed. Manifestos are very long and their policies are often described very briefly and vaguely, so there would be an enormous amount of work. When Mr Chote and others appear before the Treasury Committee, they refer to individual clusters of policy, not whole manifestos.

John Glen: Is it not also significant that there is room for great interpretative range? There is a massive number of think-tanks and analysts out there who will all draw different conclusions. The idea that one entity
	could somehow create a reliable and completely authoritative conclusion about any single manifesto is totally unrealistic.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will move on to that point shortly.
	The OBR is a new institution. Would it be right to put its recently created reputation at risk by inserting it into the political process in the run-up to an election? The answer is obviously no. These issues need to be calmly and soberly addressed, not patched together late in a Parliament. The proposal would require primary legislation, which will take time and consideration. It should not be rushed into on this timetable. The Institute for Government was perfectly clear that it should not be adopted as a hasty change to the OBR’s remit at this point in the Parliament.
	The second question is this: would such a new role compromise the OBR’s key functions? There is an obvious danger that it might. The remit would require careful amendment. Clear rules would be needed on how many policies could be costed, if not a full manifesto, and on which political parties would be eligible. The OBR could not be expected to invigilate in hard cases or act as judge on these issues. It would undoubtedly be attacked by parties that were ineligible to have their policies costed.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend has referred two or three times to policies being “costed” by the OBR. In fact, the motion refers to auditing, which has a precise meaning. I think that is the weakness of the Opposition’s case. What does an audit opinion mean? It would be qualified, true and fair, and in reality there would be several caveats, which we would end up arguing about.

Jesse Norman: That very important point speaks better than I can to my hon. Friend’s expertise. I suspect what the Opposition mean is “costed,” so their failure to understand the difference is reason alone to reject the motion. “Costing” was the word used by the Treasury Committee and that is what I would call it, too.
	There is some risk of bias against insurgent parties that were growing in public support but did not have many MPs, or in favour of declining parties for the opposite reasons.
	I remind the House that there are deeper questions to be addressed. Is it actually possible to have all policies costed in a genuinely authoritative and independent way? The answer is far from clear. Many policies are non-financial, many are vague and many have complex interactions with other policies that may themselves not have been costed, and many have implied costs that will not be captured by a direct costing exercise. It may be that the OBR will not enjoy the relative immunity from political controversy enjoyed by the civil service when it ends up costing Government and Opposition policies. Parties may try to gain the OBR, as they have attempted to do in Holland.
	My final question is this: is it wise for the state to be pushed further into the political process? My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) has made this point, but let me reiterate it. It is a far bigger question than we have time to debate today, but just as there are perfectly proper concerns about the
	state being dragged into funding political parties or into press self-regulation, so there are proper concerns that the state should not be pulled into costing party policies. After all, parties have been producing policy ideas, themes and, indeed, platforms, if not manifestos, for more than 200 years, ever since the time of Burke, Fox and Pitt. The British public have found themselves able, mirabile dictu, to make judgments for that period, even without the wisdom of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
	This very debate shows how this topic has already become bogged down by partisanship. Why does the Labour party now seek to have manifestos audited? The reason is that its polling data overwhelmingly demonstrates that Labour is hopelessly short of economic credibility. The shadow Chancellor himself is specifically responsible for—indeed, he incarnates—that lack of economic credibility. He was a key figure in the previous Government, who left our country so vulnerable to financial crisis. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept his mistakes in office as a soft-touch regulating City Minister. He is still in denial over the success of plan A. The irony is that his performance on this very issue perfectly exemplifies the reasons for his diminishing authority: first, he was against costing policies, but now he is for it. For naked short-term advantage, he is prepared to politicise the OBR and its head, amid a lot of pious words about cross-party consensus from one of the most divisive figures in politics of the past two decades.
	In conclusion, this is an important issue, but the shadow Chancellor embarrasses himself twice over: first, by placing it in such a party political context, and secondly, by ignoring the real problem for him, which is the catastrophic failure of trust in politicians and political parties today—a failure to which he himself has been no small contributor. The causes of that loss of trust have little to do with politics. They run much deeper to the decline in Britain’s influence around the world; the loss of standing of Parliament over so many recent scandals; feelings of powerlessness among the general public; an apparently increasing sense of outrage fanned by parts of the media; and a general unwillingness to grasp the complexity of Government or to give those in power the benefit of the doubt.
	The time has passed when the shadow Chancellor could expect to be heard on this or any issue. He has thrown that right away. He has lost what authority he ever possessed. Today’s debate shows precisely why he will never, and should never, regain it.

Debbie Abrahams: I agree with some bits in the speech the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has just made.

David Mowat: The last bit!

Debbie Abrahams: Certainly not the last bit. Last month’s elections were a wake-up call for all of us, and if we do not heed it, the future of politics will not look good. Far too many people feel completely disfranchised from politics and do not trust politicians. Too many people either stayed at home or cast their vote for a protest party. That is why I fully support the motion for the OBR to independently audit the spending and tax commitments of the main political parties in next year’s general election.
	Undertaking that analysis would be a major step forward to help increase openness and transparency in politics. It would enable proper scrutiny and debate on the spending plans of all political parties, and enhance the democratic process. Ultimately, it would contribute to informed decision making, which is surely what we should all want. We are here as public servants to reflect issues in our constituencies and to develop policies that respond to those issues. Communicating our policies is part of our job. That is certainly the form of politics that Opposition Members want to develop.
	This proposal is part of a process of addressing the major power imbalances and associated inequalities in our country, and we are absolutely determined to tackle it. We will continue to stand up to powerful vested interests, from media barons to the big energy companies. Information is power, and having information about how the Government or political parties intend to spend public money is very powerful.

Simon Kirby: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	To deny information to the public is absolutely shameful, and that is where the problem lies. Other parties do not want to change; they want the status quo. They want to preside over a country where there is growing inequality. The average person will have £1,600 a year less in their pocket next year compared with 2010, and the average family has lost £974 since 2010 because of the tax and benefit changes, but bank bonuses have soared and the top-to-bottom pay ratio for FTSE 100 companies stands at 300:1. The Government are presiding over such inequalities.

Sheila Gilmore: If we propose policies, as the Leader of the Opposition did last week on the provision of training opportunities for young people, it is clearly important for the public to understand that the policies will cost what we say they will cost, and surely this proposal would help.

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. That is my major argument. I cannot understand any party not wanting to provide information to enable people to make informed decisions.

Simon Kirby: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: Go on then. The hon. Gentleman has enticed me to give way.

Simon Kirby: Why does the hon. Lady suppose that we did not have an office for budget responsibility during the 13 years of the previous Government to provide the very transparency and credibility that she is now so keen on?

Debbie Abrahams: I am very grateful that we have an OBR now, but we should focus on how we use it.
	To return to the current and growing inequalities under this Government, recent research on life expectancy has shown that people in Manchester are twice as likely
	as people in Wokingham to die early, and the figures are getting worse. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) famously said:
	“Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you’ll die sooner because you’re badly off”.
	That is what is happening under this Government.
	This Government are grossly unfair and unjust: they protect their own self-interest, they are out of touch and they are out of time. Should we be elected in 2015, we have said that we will not borrow more for day-to-day spending. In stark contrast to this Government, our decisions on how we spend resources will be based on fairness, justice and evidence.
	We want our spending plans to be independently verified to make sure that they are robust. After all, that is what happens not just in the US, but in Canada, Australia and the Netherlands. I invite those who wish to enhance the democratic process and not to stifle it, as well as those who want a Britain for the many and not for the few, to join us in the Aye Lobby.

Robert Syms: I spent 13 years in opposition in this House, and I sat through several Budget speeches under the Labour Government. They were interesting, to say the least, because it usually took some weeks to find out, having read the small print, what they actually meant. At that time, we were told that boom and bust had been abolished. I very well remember the debate we had when it was revealed that the deficit was £164 billion.
	This Government had a very tough economic inheritance. We would not be in coalition if we had not, because normally, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives enjoy fighting each other all the time, but the problems of the country were so damn serious that we had to get together to try to sort them out. That is the legacy of how the last Labour Government managed our economy.
	One of the important things in 2010 was credibility. Confidence in the markets was very shaky, and the OBR was part of a range of policies that the Government introduced to add some degree of independence, so that people had more confidence in what the Government were going to do and in the figures and, indeed, so that the City and forecasters could see the direction of British policy. It was a limiting factor, because no longer could the Government adjust the growth factors or the tax take to show a rosier scenario, so that they could cut taxes. They had to live within the framework set by the OBR.
	But I do not think the OBR is some kind of magic bullet. All forecasters are, by their nature, wrong. What we have seen throughout the last four years is forecasts from the OBR go up and go down with the economic cycle, and the Opposition, on many occasions, have accused us of having large deficits and putting up the national debt on the basis of OBR forecasts. As the economy is now growing and they are going the other way, no doubt we are praying in aid the OBR that things are getting better and we are getting on top of the problem.
	The reality is that the OBR is a small body of public servants who do their best to give some independent
	credibility to Government policy. If I were to focus additional money or resources, it would be on having a few more people in the OBR rooting around in what our Government are doing, rather than in what the Opposition might do. Even today, when we look at budgets and financial statements, the reality is that there are still a lot of figures about tax avoidance and Swiss agreements to bring in more taxation that ought to be rooted around in by the OBR to see whether or not the Government forecasts are robust, because the OBR is dealing with matters of fact. It is dealing with the Government, with public spending and with how a country is being run.
	I do not think that focusing on what the Opposition may or may not do is a terribly good way of spending money. Would it have been a good use of money for civil servants to spend a lot of time looking at what the leadership plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague)were for the country? Simply on the basis of the 2001 election, no. Would there have been a lot of benefit in looking at the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) or of Michael Howard? The only time when there might have been some benefit would have been before 2010, when it looked like there would be a change of Government.

John Glen: Is the other lesson not that in government, decisions are made as a consequence of actions that are being taken in other parts of the Government and, in fact, the costs of delivering some programmes are very different when those decisions have to be taken? Therefore, any judgment would be somewhat qualified.

Robert Syms: Yes, and lots of assumptions would still have to be made. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, made some very good points about ground rules that ought to be discussed in peace time. If this is an idea worth exploring, it is better to explore it in a relatively more peaceful political time post the 2015 election to see whether it has some merit.
	I think that the greater benefit for public debate in this Chamber between the parties is a greater focus on what the Government are doing with their plans. That would give more information to the Opposition and Back Benchers to question and hold the Government to account, rather than focusing on the hypotheticals of what may or may not happen if, indeed, the Government change. Not least, if the focus is on manifestos—they come out in March before an election, at the last possible moment, so that there are nice surprises for the newspapers—how on earth could the OBR look at those and objectively give any kind of costing before the election?
	Looking at the future programme, in the autumn, we have the autumn statement and all the spending plans. We are then immediately into the Budget, and just beyond that, we are into a general election. It is bad enough trying to predict what the Government are doing, let alone what the Labour party are trying to do at that time. As I said at the start of my speech, any kind of forecast is bound to be wrong, so the OBR would be wrong about what the Government are doing and wrong about what the Labour party is doing.

Jesse Norman: Might it be worth my hon. Friend sharing my view and correcting the record? The OBR was set up by transferring existing civil servants from the Treasury into a new entity. It is therefore not right to say that it was set up quickly and could therefore be expanded quickly. It already had those civil servants, which was why it was allowed to succeed and start so quickly. Growing it is an entirely separate matter.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) replies, I point out that Government interventions are having the consequence of talking out any Members who are still waiting to speak, and there are quite a number. We will start the wind-ups at 6.40 pm.

Robert Syms: I conclude my contribution by saying that the OBR has a role. We should stick with its current role and perhaps look at changing it after the general election, but I do not think that this proposal has much merit. If it did have merit, would we be kicking it around on an Opposition day? I do not think so.

Chris Williamson: Let me start with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He is a very clever man—he went to public school, I believe—but he was being deliberately obtuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention that somehow the OBR would have to take account of every possible nuance and potential spending commitment that a shadow Minister might make at an obscure public meeting in a village hall in some obscure little village, perhaps in North East Somerset. Perhaps he has not had time—he is a very busy man—to read the motion tabled by the Labour party, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East pointed out, we are asking the OBR to audit the manifesto, not inadvertent comments that may have been made off the cuff at an obscure meeting in a village hall in North East Somerset.
	The Minister had the temerity—I will put it like that—to suggest that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was using this proposition as a fig leaf. How dare she! If anybody is responsible for indulging in trying to use a fig leaf, it is the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government Front-Bench team. They suggested that somehow the OBR could not manage this proposal and that it would be unable to scrutinise things as an independent body. They said, “It is a new organisation, it is very young and it couldn’t quite manage it; let’s get the general election out of the way first.” However, members of the Treasury team know full well that our propositions are properly costed and would be doable. This is about the sort of country and society we want, and perhaps about the ideology and values that underpin Labour, compared with those that underpin the Government.
	The truth—this is no coincidence—is that the Chancellor is not here because he is frightened. If I may quote the words of the late Margaret Thatcher, he is
	“Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Could not take it? Cannot stand it?”—[Official Report, 19 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 159.]
	That would be especially so if the Labour proposition was actually subject to an independent audit by the OBR. That is the real reason why the Government are opposing the Labour motion.

Debbie Abrahams: Is this not also about wanting to maintain the status quo, and is it not revealing what that says about the Government and their political priorities?

Chris Williamson: Very much so. For all the great talk about a different approach to politics that the Prime Minister suggested he wanted to herald in, this is the very worst of the old politics.
	The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) thought the proposal a bad idea in principle, but the British people deserve better than what they have had, and they certainly deserve better than what they get from the Conservatives. Routinely, what we see from Conservative Members, with their friends in the right-wing media, is a hysterical outpouring of misrepresentation of Labour manifesto proposals.
	I remember Labour’s “double whammy” of tax and spend that the Conservatives used in 1992, and the VAT bombshell and all that nonsense, when we had actually gone to some lengths to be straight and honest with the British public and produce a shadow Budget. Yes, it was clear there would have been some tax increases, but they would have been for the richest people in society; eight out of 10 people would have benefited from Labour’s shadow Budget, but that was not what the Conservatives said or what was portrayed by the right-wing media. Had we had the opportunity of an independent audit of that shadow Budget, it would have been clear that the Conservatives were misrepresenting—or not, as the case might be—Labour’s proposals.
	I understand why the Government are trying to resist the motion, but I want to see our proposals audited. On housing, for example, instead of giving billions of pounds to private landlords, it would be better value to invest that money in building houses for people. Surely, that would be a better use of money. It would be good—would it not?— for the OBR to scrutinise and audit that.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is doing a great job of getting rid of some of the misrepresentations and nonsense that we talked about earlier. The shadow Chancellor made it clear earlier that he was proposing that the OBR would only provide independent scrutiny and certification of the policy costings of political parties with at least 5% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is an important point. We are not referring to every draughty hall or every party, however few seats it holds. Those points should be made clear, and I hope that he agrees that this shows that Government Members were just not listening.

Chris Williamson: I very much agree. It is pretty clear that Government Members have closed minds and closed ears. Nobody is so deaf as those who refuse to hear. It is an inconvenient truth—is it not?—that our proposal would take the partisanship out of election campaign to some extent and ensure that the British people get a clearer picture of the respective merits of the Conservative
	offer and of Conservative values. It is perfectly legitimate for the Conservatives to say, “We want to look after and enrich the wealthiest people in our country.” They are perfectly entitled to do that—perfectly entitled to impoverish the vast majority of people and force down wages—and we are perfectly entitled to propose our alternative.
	We want to ensure that the vast majority of the British people—ordinary working people—actually benefit from the economic growth that, thankfully, we are seeing now, but most of the economic growth in the country today is going not into the pockets of ordinary people, but to the top 1% of society. I want to take away the opportunity for us to misrepresent each other’s policies and limit the opportunity for negative campaigning. A lot of people are turned off by negative campaigning, but it can be very effective. Our proposal would be a force for good. It is what the British people deserve, and the British people will make up their own minds if the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat poodles vote against this motion tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like the Front-Bench winding-up speeches to begin at, or very close to, 6.40 pm. One hon. Member, with a stunning lack of self-regard, has just given way, in the interests of colleagues, both of whom I would like to accommodate.

Damian Hinds: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.
	There are arguments in favour of the proposal and of doing it in time: it could help to ensure that only realistic proposals are put in front of the electorate; also—the shadow Chancellor made this point jokingly, but it is a serious one—within parties it could help to strengthen the hand of those seeking to impose fiscal discipline against those who wish to offer the earth, of whom his own party has more than its fair share; and it could open a dialogue early on between the OBR and a group that might soon be in government; but there is one big argument against it, and it was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am talking about the danger of a false sense of security being attached to a party’s programme for government.
	It is right, and it happens, that independent and respected organisations make appraisals of parties’ proposals. We need extreme caution, however, if we seek to institute a single gold-standard appraisal with a sort of state licensing behind it which could be attached to a manifesto. It would be extremely difficult for the organisation involved to avoid political controversy, and there would also be a danger of closing down further debate and additional scrutiny from elsewhere. With tax and spending, it is never as simple as saying, “Oh, cost the proposals” because behavioural assumptions are, of course, relevant as well.
	When it comes to forecasting, J. K. Galbraith said there were two types of people:
	“those who don’t know, and those who don’t know they don’t know”.
	Fortunately, the OBR is in a group that knows it does not know, but unfortunately it has to deal with other people who have a hunger for simple binary answers
	and do not deal in “don’t knows”. Forecasting is a series of fan charts, an examination of assumptions, an appraisal of the risks and upsides—and, crucially, seeking ways to mitigate those risks. The media, however, will look for a simple yes or no, and we can bet that any party going through the process will find a way to say that the organisation concerned has said yes, which makes it dangerous. The OBR knows that, and it knows that it is a nuclear option to say “No, the official Opposition’s proposal for government does not get our seal of approval”. That is not a power it would use, so the implicit yes is not worth a huge amount either.
	I am in favour of there being wider capability for analytical scrutiny of political parties’ proposals, and that could be done either through the OBR or through Parliament itself via the Select Committee system. To be reliable and to avoid politicisation, an institution should not be making forward-looking projections relating to individual proposals. They should be either backward looking or generic—backward looking in the sense of “what did happen with the changes to the top rate of income tax?” or generic in the sense of “what is the evidence from this country and around the world relating to elasticity of tax rates?” If such things are to happen, they should happen gradually, but it is very risky to have a single state-licensed, gold-standard approval mechanism for any party’s manifesto.

Mark Garnier: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). It will be a surprise for the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) to know that I found a Conservative on a Select Committee who was actually in favour of Labour’s proposals. I refer to the Treasury Select Committee of 2010, which said in its fourth report of the Session:
	“Legislation should leave the OBR able to conduct work on fiscal policies of political parties along the lines proposed by Robert Chote in evidence on 16th September”.
	At that time, then, there was a different viewpoint in the House. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor has managed to develop a political consensus that now includes, but did not at the time, the viewpoint of the shadow Business Secretary when he was a member of the Treasury Select Committee. At the time, he and other Labour Members were opposed to this idea—for reasons I cannot possibly imagine, but I am sure they can speculate on that.
	I would like to pose one or two questions suggesting why I think this proposition is completely unworkable at this stage of the Parliament, and why I think that if we are to have a serious debate about this topic, we should have it in the next Parliament. My first question is: who will qualify for appraisal by this type of process? The shadow Chancellor has said that it would include the main political parties and those that have more than 5% of the seats in the House of Commons—not a completely unreasonable proposition. As we know in connection with the debate we hope to have in the run-up to the general election, other parties, including some who polled reasonably well in the European elections, feel that they should be involved in those debates. They would come forward and argue—probably quite powerfully—that they should be allowed to do so. I do not necessarily think they should, but they may well do.
	What, too, about the nationalist parties? The Scottish National party would probably not want its budget proposals debated ahead of the Scottish referendum, but perhaps we would like to have a close look at that and assess what would happen with Scotland. That is my first point—who is involved? It will be much more complex than suggested.
	The second question is: how do we achieve this? Let us stay with the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats—I am sorry for not including the Liberals as one of the main parties. The reality is that only two parties are seeking exclusively to govern this country. The Liberal Democrats have said, quite fairly, that they will act in coalition with one or other of the main parties. That is a reasonable proposition, but their proposals are not “govern alone budget policies”; they are “modification of other parties’ policies in coalition”. Are we proposing that the OBR should reassess the costs of the policies in the Conservative and Labour manifestos as if they were in a coalition? It gets very complicated.
	Finally, on a practical level, how on earth can the OBR be expected to do this? We know that manifestos come out incredibly close to the election, so there will be very little time for the OBR to carry this out. It would need to have advance sight of the manifestos, and possibly publish the figures at the time of their publication. If the parties involved then felt uncomfortable, they would simply say “Actually, that was a bit of work in progress, so please ignore it. We did not really mean to give away huge amounts of money to your pet charity.”
	My point is that too many impracticalities need to be solved, and that they need to be solved at a much more leisurely rate. Let me return to my starting point. In 2010, when the Treasury Committee was considering setting up the OBR, it was perfectly happy to recommend this action. However, there was more or less a consensus in the House of Lords that it should absolutely not be taken, and Labour members of the Select Committee were very reluctant to put their name to our report.
	The position is difficult. There is too much to be done. I am convinced that the time to do this properly is the beginning of the next Parliament, when we have plenty of time to think about it in a clear, measured and cool-headed way.

Cathy Jamieson: We have had what could best be described as a very interesting debate. Let me begin by picking up a point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who said that the sums done by the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government did not add up. The Scottish Government’s child care proposals provide a good example of that. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has studied the figures, and has demonstrated that the SNP’s sums do not add up and its policies do not make sense. However, that is not the subject of today’s debate.
	I think that the debate has been useful, although, like others, I was a bit disappointed that the Chancellor had not seen fit to come to the House and defend the Government’s position. As for the Financial Secretary, I know from previous debates that she generally seeks to build consensus. Perhaps she was simply given a
	script and told to make the best of a bad job, but I was nevertheless surprised that she did not adopt her usual tone. It seemed to me that her heart was not in the argument that she was presenting, and that, given the opportunity and a slightly different setting, she might have adopted another approach.
	We heard a number of thoughtful and considered contributions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I have already mentioned the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. He too made a thoughtful speech, although I did not agree with everything that he said. We made one interesting discovery, namely that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has not ruled out standing for the leadership of any political party. I look forward to observing his progress in the coming weeks and months.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) explained our proposal very well, in his usual careful, considered and consensual style. I found it difficult to understand why Government Members took such exception to the way in which he set out what I thought was a very good case. The OBR already scrutinises the Government’s spending and tax policies and assesses whether they are reasonable, and we are merely asking for what is, essentially, a logical extension of that. We are suggesting that the OBR should perform the role that we propose not just for the current Government, but for prospective Governments.
	As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, it would be sensible to require the OBR to audit only the manifestos of parties with 5% of the seats in the House. We need not involve it in every party manifesto. Ultimately, what the public want to know is that someone has looked at the sums of the parties that are likely to be in government to ensure that they add up.
	Some Members on the Government Benches spoke as if the OBR would suddenly have to have a raft of civil servants and new people to do costings all over the place, every day of the week, for months and months. Let me again put on the record what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in his letter in September to the head of the OBR:
	“The reform I am proposing would mean the Opposition would submit costings for proposed manifesto commitments on spending and tax—obtained from, for example, the House of Commons Library, Parliamentary Questions or the Institute for Fiscal Studies”—
	it was interesting to note the number of times that Government Members referred to that; I hope that they will take account of the findings of that august body as the debate continues—
	“and the OBR would ‘provide independent scrutiny and certification’ of those costings.”
	Therefore, it is not the case, as seemed to be suggested, that the OBR is being expected to do all the costings. It is being expected to certify those.

Ian Swales: The hon. Lady mentioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies. A look at its remit shows that this kind of work falls squarely under its banner. It
	also receives more than half its funding from the public purse, directly or indirectly. Does she not think that it could fulfil the role that the motion describes?

Cathy Jamieson: The IFS’s role is slightly different from the one that has been proposed. This is about scrutinising and certifying the policies and plans for government. One hon. Member mentioned the difference between costings and audit. We are saying that the costings should be looked at. That role is slightly different from the one that the IFS fulfils.
	We are confident that our policies will stand up to that scrutiny. We are confident enough to say that we want the OBR to run the rule over all the spending commitments in our manifesto. As Members have rightly said, we recognise the need to restore trust in politics. The public want assurances that our policies add up. They want the OBR, having done the work, to be in a position to give them the quality assurance that they seek. We strongly believe that the other major parties should be prepared to do the same thing. That will enable the electorate to make an informed decision based on facts. That is important.

David Mowat: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cathy Jamieson: I am very short of time, unfortunately.
	It is important to recognise that a number of people—Members have referred to this—have shown support in principle. The Government’s argument is twofold. First, they want to preserve the independence of the OBR. My hon. Friends have advanced a number of arguments as to why the Government seem to be the only people at this stage who are bringing party politics into the debate on the OBR. It is not Members on the Opposition Benches who are doing so. Secondly, it is important to recognise that the Government’s other objection is that there is insufficient time. However, we have the information and discussions have taken place with the head of the OBR. If we do not make a decision quickly and put measures in place, we will run out of time, but there is still a window of opportunity.
	I hope that when he sums up the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was unable to answer earlier. What discussions have Ministers had with the OBR since the plans were first mooted? Our integrity, why we are making the proposal and what we have done about it has been questioned, but it is also the responsibility of Government to take these matters forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us information on that.
	As far back as 2010, the Chancellor himself said that this was a
	“legitimate matter for the House to debate and decide.”
	It is unfortunate not only that in the intervening years he has not seen fit to address the issue, but that he has not seen fit to turn up today to give us any more information. That leaves us on this side of the House with no option but to draw the conclusion that the only reason why the Government do not adopt a consensual approach today and embrace the opportunity to take this proposal forward is that they have no wish to do this whatsoever, and I am sure the public watching will also draw that conclusion. The public will then also draw the inference that those of us on the Opposition
	Benches draw: that the Government do not wish to have their policies put under the same scrutiny as we are prepared to have our policies put under.

David Gauke: We have had a lively debate this afternoon, with a number of contributions. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made a forthright speech. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made an important point regarding concerns about subcontracting all matters to outside bodies. He also drew a comparison between the shadow Chancellor as a consensus-builder and King Herod as a babysitter. To be fair, my hon. Friend did say he thought he might have been a little unfair, although it was not entirely clear to whom.
	The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) reminded me to use the expression “long-term economic plan” in my speech, which I had not originally intended to do, but I am grateful for that reminder. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) described this as a power grab by the shadow Chancellor, and he drew out what I think is an important point about the shadow Chancellor trying to instil some discipline into the Labour party. My hon. Friend also mulled over the prospect of the shadow Chancellor becoming leader of the Labour party. I think that is an unlikely career move—but the Labour party could certainly do worse.
	The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) highlighted the fact that the OBR is an important institution. He objected to members of the Treasury Committee quoting Robert Chote, and then quoted Robert Chote. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) said there is a case for doing what is proposed but that we should wait until after the election, by contrast with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) who said we should get on with it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) made a thoughtful speech, drawing on his knowledge and experience of the Treasury Committee, Edmund Burke and polling data, and argued that the reason for this motion is Labour’s lack of economic credibility. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made an impassioned speech, which I have to say I did not agree with—but it was impassioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) set out some of the practical difficulties of the proposal in the motion. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) referred to hysterical outpourings. I think he used that phrase, and certainly the expression “hysterical outpourings” springs to mind when thinking of his speech. He spent four minutes accusing the Conservative party of all sorts of things, and then said the advantage of this policy is that it would end negative campaigning. We shall see.
	In an excellent and short speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised concerns about politicisation of the OBR. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) also made an excellent speech setting out some practical questions.
	I think it is worth just taking a few moments to remind the House of why the OBR was set up in the
	first place. The best evidence for this is the book published after the last election by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), and in particular his chapter describing the events of the 2009 Budget, which was very clearly a negotiation on the position that the Treasury and the then Prime Minister took on economic growth. This was not about searching hard for the truth, therefore; it was a negotiation. That is worth bearing in mind when we hear about the shadow Chancellor being a builder of consensus and a zealot in the cause of independent oversight of fiscal forecasts, because what is also clear is that the shadow Chancellor was part of those negotiations.

Edward Balls: Not true.

David Gauke: The shadow Chancellor says that is not true, but let me quote from page 226 of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer’s book. He talked about discussions “rarely” reaching conclusions, and said:
	“Sometimes there would be just two of us”,
	meaning just him and the Prime Minister. He refers to the current shadow Chancellor being
	“there on a few occasions”.

Edward Balls: I was the Education Secretary at the time. The accusation was that I was involved in a discussion of the growth figure. Can the Exchequer Secretary substantiate that?

David Gauke: I again refer to page 226. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West refers to the negotiations on the growth numbers. He says that the shadow Chancellor was “there”.
	We have had a thoughtful debate, and arguments have been made on both sides about whether it is right that the OBR should be able to oversee Opposition party policies. However, there is a question about timing. The shadow Chancellor explained why the position of his party when the relevant legislation was taken through was to oppose that. He said earlier today that in the early days it was cautious about protecting impartiality; now, he appears to be incautious. There is an issue here, and Lord Eatwell made the point on 8 November 2010 about embroiling the OBR in “political controversy”.
	The next point to make is a practical one. The shadow Chancellor has long experience of involvement in policy matters and Budget matters. He will also have read the letter from Robert Chote of 15 January 2014 setting out the process. It involves a “preliminary ‘scorecard’ of measures”, and there is a detailed costing to note. It is an “iterative” process and during it, policies are refined and in some cases significantly amended. The important point is that this is
	“a time consuming and resource intensive exercise, both for the OBR and for the analysts in the responsible departments”—
	the likes of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Department for Work and Pensions. This is not a minor change. It is not about recruiting just a few more OBR staff; it is a fundamental change in the way the civil service operates with the Opposition.
	The question we have to ask ourselves is why Labour is proposing this. As some Members made clear today, it is essentially about Labour’s lack of credibility on the economy. As Lord Prescott has said, Labour gets “smashed
	on the economy”. As the Leader of the Opposition’s former speech writer said, he fell out with the shadow Chancellor because
	“Labour’s economic policy is nonsense.”
	And as the shadow Chancellor’s old friend Charles Clarke has said:
	“We rested a great deal on assuming…that plan A would not work, and that proved to be an unwise judgement.”

Edward Balls: The head of the OBR told the Treasury Committee in March that if this was agreed in a cross-party way by early summer, by which he meant the end of June, we could proceed. If the head of the OBR is willing to proceed and there is agreement today, why will the Government not agree?

David Gauke: The head of the OBR also made it clear that there were risks involved, and that those advocating this step would find it would be better not to rush into it, but to do it after the next election, and that is the position we take. This issue should be looked at again after the next election.
	The reality is that Labour does not have economic credibility. It borrowed too much in the good times when it was in office, and opposed our measures to reduce the deficit in recent years. Only a year ago, the shadow Chancellor said:
	“The problem with austerity is that it chokes off jobs and growth”.—[Official Report, 17 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 717.]
	Well, we are getting new jobs and we are getting the growth. The truth is that Labour is making a long list of unfunded spending pledges. Today the shadow Chancellor said, “We have been exemplary”. I could give him a long list to show that they have not. I will give Labour one answer: if they want to restore fiscal credibility, their first step—change their shadow Chancellor.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 218, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises the important role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in producing independent forecasts for the economy and the public finances, and the value this has had in restoring trust in official forecasts; notes that the OBR is a newly independent institution and judges that it would not be appropriate to involve it in party political matters at its first election; notes the comments made by the Chairman of the OBR, Robert Chote, in a letter dated 15 January 2014 to the House of Commons Treasury Committee that ‘to embark on this exercise in a rush, or with insufficient resources, could be very disruptive to the parties and very damaging to the OBR’; and supports the view expressed in that letter that it is ‘better to consider these issues at the beginning of the next Parliament’.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Family Proceedings

That the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (County Court and Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 April 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 6 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Health Care and Associated Professions

That the draft Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 6 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Development of Earls Barton Village (Daventry)

Chris Heaton-Harris: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 400 petitioners in Earls Barton—a beautiful village in my constituency that has an emerging neighbourhood plan, stewarded by the wonderful Councillor Robert Gough, and is in a borough that has a five-year land supply. The petitioners are concerned about over-development of their village.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners object to the overdevelopment of Earls Barton Village. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that national planning policies afford appropriate protection for rural communities.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001361]

CYCLE SAFETY (BUSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Foster.)

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure, Mr Speaker, to get lucky and get this Adjournment debate tonight. I am glad to have been given the opportunity to hold this debate, as it raises an important and emotional topic not only for some of my constituents but for far too many families affected by fatal cycling accidents up and down the country.
	I was first contacted by my constituents, Peter and Barbara Helliwell, in February 2012. They wanted to raise the circumstances around the case of their daughter, Jayne, who was tragically killed having being struck by a bus while cycling in Oxford street in April 2010, aged only 25. At that time, Jayne lived in east London and worked as an artist, photographer, graphic designer and music video director. She studied at Kingston university, cycled regularly, and had a specially adapted bike for city riding. In fact, she was on her way to a photo shoot when she was tragically killed, just a week before her 26th birthday. As a testament to her character and the impact her life had had on so many others, Jayne’s friends recently held a 30th birthday party for her in London, which her parents attended, to celebrate what was such a bright and promising life, taken far too soon.
	In my largely rural Daventry constituency, fatal bus collisions are very rare, thankfully, so speaking to Peter and Barbara was the first time that many issues surrounding cycling in cities and cycle safety around buses had been raised with me. Peter and Barbara, Jayne’s parents, are an unbelievably strong and level-headed couple, especially given the horrific situation that they have been through. They pointed out to me many pertinent points and reasonable arguments about how to improve the safety of cyclists in cities and around buses, and I hope that I will do them justice here.
	Many of those points are echoed in the high-profile Cities Fit for Cycling campaign led recently by The Times. In February 2012, the newspaper launched an eight-point manifesto for its cycling campaign. It said that heavy goods vehicles entering city centres should be fitted with sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors, and safety bars. It suggested identifying the 500 most dangerous road junctions and redesigning them accordingly with added safety measures. It pushed for a national audit of cycling. It asked the Highways Agency to earmark 2% of its annual budget for next-generation cycle routes. It called for improved training of cyclists and drivers, including cycle safety becoming a core part of the driving test. It proposed a mandatory default speed limit of 20 mph in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes. It said that businesses should be invited to sponsor cycle schemes, and that every city in the country should appoint a cycling commissioner.
	In the light of their own experience, the Helliwells had additional important points they wanted to raise. They pointed out, for example, that there remains ambiguity about the legal position on the appointment of bus drivers with known medical conditions that could suddenly spark and cause an accident, such as a history of sciatica. Sciatica is the cause of much concern. Medical
	opinion states that this condition can result in sudden leg movements, potentially causing the driver to hit the wrong pedal. Alas, in Jayne Helliwell’s case, that is exactly what happened—on one of the busiest roads in the United Kingdom.
	Should bus drivers be allowed to drive with sciatica, and should the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency include sciatic pain as a reason not to drive unless a driver undergoes regular medical checks? CTC, the national cycling charity, has said that
	“in the Helliwell case, the driver had a long-term illness which his employers were not aware of. Better medical testing must be carried out on drivers to avoid this sort of incident occurring again”.
	In Jayne’s case, the Crown Prosecution Service opted to offer no evidence because
	“it is not now sure that the prosecution could reach the high standard of proving, so that the jury would be sure that (The Driver) drove far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver given those medical circumstances in which it has already been shown that he would not have been able to foresee the sciatica coming on in the way in which it did, causing him to press the accelerator rather than to press or try to press the brake”.
	We must therefore ask questions about the medical condition of sciatic pain and its continued impact upon serious and fatal collisions. I would like to hear whether the Minister thinks that his Department’s current guidance on these matters is sufficiently strong.
	It is also important to consider the policies on how bus drivers are retrained when returning to work after having a road traffic incident while working. In Jayne’s case, the driver in question had been involved in a number of previous incidents and had received “corrective training” years before Jayne’s death, which still counted as “current”. Actually, Metroline, the bus company involved, considered “corrective training” to be “current” for five years.
	To be fair, Transport for London has done a lot to improve cycle safety around buses recently. The Helliwells, who have travelled down to listen to this debate, have already remarked on the number of buses they have seen displaying the extra large yellow stickers on the back to alert cyclists to their proximity. Transport for London should be commended for examining the issues that many cycling campaigns have raised on promoting bus driver training. However, there remain a few questions on how robust its policy review has been in practice. There is a concern that best practice is starting in London but not being spread to local authorities across the rest of the country. As CTC has said,
	“bus drivers should have to undergo cycle safety training similar to that which has been carried out by Transport for London, particularly in areas like Oxford and Cambridge, where the aggression cyclists face from bus drivers is at its worst. Training is particularly needed in places where bus lanes are less than 4.5m wide”.
	I should add that cycle lanes that are less than 3 metres wide are common across the country. To improve road safety, councils, in particular, should be proactive in tackling the danger presented by buses, which is very much within their jurisdiction.
	Unfortunately for Peter and Barbara Helliwell, the issues that arose in 2010 involved not only road safety itself, but the conduct of the transport companies in London. After the collision, Metroline did not contact the Helliwell family until August 2010—four months
	after the event—even though it had completed its own internal disciplinary procedure on 27 April, which had resulted in the dismissal of the driver at fault. Alas, Mr Helliwell told me that not only did the company take that amount time to make contact, but when it eventually did it showed no remorse whatsoever. Following that experience, I think it is fair to say that all transport companies should heed the words of the Helliwells and examine how they communicate with and support collision victims and their families. They should aim to work alongside police support officers, and all involved parties should clarify what their roles are in these circumstances. Importantly, they should identify what support is available to families and victims.
	Another point that Peter and Barbara have raised with me concerns the compensation claims procedure. It is a long and stressful process that essentially involves a complicated negotiation over a long period of time. That is the last thing a family needs when trying to gain some closure after losing a loved one. I simply cannot imagine how impossible it must seem to have someone put a figure on the cost of a family member’s life. In Jayne’s case the compensation system created anger and confusion. The family were offered a sum of £3,000 for expenses, but, when they indicated that it would go to a charity, it rose to five times that amount—£15,000—with no explanation given for the vast difference or the quick change of mind.
	The Helliwells have suggested that bus companies, or their insurers, should set up a fund to remove the need for such a long, enduring compensation process, and that it should be modelled on other compensation funds that deal with similar situations. That would certainly ensure that the detached, impersonal nature of Mr and Mrs Helliwell’s experience with Metroline would be addressed, because people would have a direct line of compassionate contact. As such, the companies should offer more trained support staff to work with victims, families and drivers affected by the trauma of a collision.
	I also want to address the legal case, although I am aware that the subject is not within the remit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). My constituents would like the role of the Crown Prosecution Service to be examined, as they had no contact at all with the appointed barrister until minutes before the Crown court trial. They would have liked to have had the option to meet the appointed barrister long before the trial, to find out what was being done and why—in the same way that a defendant has meetings with legal representatives beforehand. In addition, the Helliwells have spoken about how impersonal and faceless the legal process was at times. Certainly, in such a situation, some humility would have gone an awfully long way.
	Since this debate went on the Order Paper, I have been contacted by various other people and organisations that have either been affected by the issues I am raising or that are campaigning on them. Although one charity has said that it commends the work of Transport for London in trying to learn lessons from the past and improve things, one individual who was put into a coma following a bus collision in 2009 has told me of the fight he has had to get Transport for London to start publishing
	its casualty data each quarter. This individual’s campaign has led to data being routinely published, following his hard work and that of some Conservative London assembly members. The data show that, on average over the past five years, Transport for London buses have killed or seriously injured a person every day.
	It is surely in the interests of Transport for London, as the sole contractor of London’s bus services, to do more and go further to ensure that that number decreases. In highlighting that number, I have to ask: what lessons have Transport for London and the Department for Transport learned following Jayne Helliwell’s death, and what further steps do they plan to take to try to prevent similar deaths in the future?
	Having spoken to the Helliwells, I know just how grateful they are for the support continually offered by family and friends, but they have particularly highlighted the excellent support that the charity Brake has given them since Jayne’s accident. Brake is a fantastic road safety charity that exists to stop the needless deaths and serious injuries that happen every day on the roads of the United Kingdom. It promotes road safety awareness, safe and sustainable road use and effective road safety policies. Importantly, it offers care for families where a loved one has been seriously or fatally injured in a road collision. To not use today’s debate to highlight that work and to thank Brake for the support it has given the Helliwells would be a wasted opportunity, so I thank it now.
	I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, indeed, all Members to take an active part in road safety week, which will run from 17 to 23 November. This year’s theme is “Look out for each other”, emphasising that drivers, especially those of large vehicles, need to be aware of other, vulnerable, road users—a rather poignant campaign, given the subject of today’s debate.
	Although I am a recreational cyclist, I am not one of the tens of thousands of people who get on their bike to go to work or to study. I understand that it is impossible to guarantee all the country’s cyclists complete safety, but I really do not think it is too much to ask that we learn from the tragic death of Jayne Helliwell and try to ensure that bus drivers are correctly trained and aware of the dangers they can pose to cyclists on our increasingly busy streets.
	Jayne’s accident was the most horrific of tragedies. Let us hope that learning lessons from it can prevent others like it in the future.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing this debate. Let me say at the outset that I am aware of the tragic death of his constituents’ daughter, Jayne Helliwell, who sadly lost her life four years ago, following a collision involving a double-decker bus while she was cycling in London. Of course, any death is one too many, and I extend my sympathies to her family and friends.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring cycle safety around buses to the attention of the House. The Prime Minister has said that he wants a cycling revolution in this country, but that will not happen unless people feel safe cycling on our streets. We have seen a sharp
	increase in cycling in London in recent years. Although the rate of casualties has declined, we are absolutely determined to do more to improve cycle safety.
	A range of issues are pertinent to my hon. Friend’s constituents’ tragic incident—cycle safety, the training and licensing of bus operators with medical conditions and support for victims who have lost a loved one. There are three critical central pillars to our approach to cycle safety: first, we are investing in infrastructure; secondly, we are cracking down on dangerous drivers; and, thirdly, we are offering cycle training.
	We have already made it easier for local councils to put in place high-quality cycling infrastructure. For example, we have made it simpler for councils to introduce 20 mph zones and to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions. We have just finished consulting on the update to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, which is the bible used by engineers when planning signs and road markings. We expect the final regulations to include many measures developed in discussion with cycling groups, including low-level signals for cyclists, new types of crossings for pedestrians and cyclists and new designs of the advanced stop line. We will also trial new dedicated cycle streets, which will give councils the opportunity, by banning overtaking, to put cyclists on an equal footing with motorists on popular cycle routes.
	We are absolutely determined to stamp out the kind of dangerous driving that ruins people’s lives, which is why the Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Those convicted will face up to five years in prison, which is significantly more than the previous maximum.
	The third pillar is improving the training of all motorists, so that they know how to use roads as safely as possible. My Department’s cycle safety forum brings together the main interested partners, including the Association of Chief Police Officers and motoring and freight organisations. With Transport for London, we have established a taskforce to raise awareness of safety among drivers and to take targeted enforcement action against a small minority of potentially dangerous operators, drivers and vehicles.
	We have encouraged behavioural change and raised awareness on the safety of cyclists with the Think Cyclist campaign. We are funding the widely recognised Bikeability training scheme. By March 2013, more than 1 million children had been trained, and between April 2013 and March 2015, we expect more than 616,000 further training places to be delivered. The House will want to be aware that Bikeability is not just for children, and some councils already providing free or subsidised training for adults.
	I will turn to the legal position on the licensing of bus drivers with sciatica or other medical conditions. We operate high medical standards for all drivers. They are set out in the second and third European Union directives on driving licences, which came into force in Great Britain on 1 January 1997 and 19 January 2013. Annex III of the third directive sets out the minimum standards of medical fitness to drive that are to be applied by all member states, but member states may set higher standards if they so wish.
	There are stricter medical standards for drivers of lorries and buses, and rightly so. Such professional drivers must have a medical examination when they first
	apply for a licence, and then every five years from the age of 45 and every year from the age of 65. From 19 January 2013, new applicants are required to renew their bus or lorry licence every five years and provide a self-declaration about their health. Section 92(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 only requires licence holders to inform the DVLA about a medical condition that may affect fitness to drive if that condition is likely to extend beyond three months in duration.
	Sciatica is a well-known problem, with intermittent symptoms, but not a disease as such, and for this reason, it is not currently a condition that the DVLA would need to be informed of in the interests of road safety. However, it is for the driver to ensure that where they are suffering from a medical condition that is temporary in its duration, they are fit to drive.
	I will now turn to the process of training for professional drivers. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has created a national standard for drivers of buses and coaches that sets out the knowledge and skills required to be a safe and responsible driver. The standard includes advice on how to react to vulnerable road users, including cyclists. The competences described by the standard underpin our bus-driving test.
	The theory test for bus drivers includes questions relating to vulnerable road users, including cyclists. Professional drivers must also hold a driver certificate of professional competence, which involves most drivers undertaking 35 hours of training over a period of five years. We have had calls from Transport for London and others that this periodic training should include mandatory elements specifically about vulnerable road users, and we are actively considering how a voluntary scheme to include driver safety training could work. We do not have the power to specify individual hours of training that must be taken, but we will work with training providers to encourage the inclusion of this issue in the courses that we approve.
	On the subject of justice for families of victims, despite our efforts on training and medical standards for professional drivers, accidents can occur and the consequences, obviously, can be fatal. It is important that we have the right support systems in place for the families of victims of road traffic fatalities. The Crown Prosecution Service is an active member of the justice for vulnerable road users group, which is chaired by the Department for Transport and has representatives from non-governmental organisations, voluntary groups and various ministerial agencies.
	The CPS recognises our obligation to victims of crime, and road traffic crime is no exception. The latest guidance on victims is in a document entitled, “Homicide Cases—Guidance on CPS service to bereaved families”. Road traffic crime victims and their families are placed on the same footing as those families suffering in the aftermath of a homicide. The CPS works across various Government agencies, providing practical guidance to making improvements in prosecuting such cases. The CPS has been working with my Department on the proposed drug-driving offence and with the Ministry of Justice on its recommendation to create a new offence of death by disqualified driving.
	I also note the point surrounding the communications from the company, and although I would not wish to make excuses for the company, I know that lawyers representing insurers can often caution operators not to
	speak to anyone else involved in such cases, but there is no similar excuse that the CPS could extend for not keeping people in the loop.
	My hon. Friend asked what lessons have been learnt and what actions are being taken following the tragic incident to improve the safety of cyclists around buses. The Department strongly supports improving the safety of cyclists and welcomes initiatives to gather intelligence on the effectiveness of innovative technology. TfL is planning to test two different camera or radar-based detection systems in the summer, designed to improve the safety of cyclists.
	Earlier this month, the bus operator, First West of England, started trialling, for the first time, state-of-the-art cycle safety technology on three of its buses on a busy route in Bristol. That is part of an ongoing trial funded by four West of England local authorities that has also involved Wessex Bus. CycleEye technology developed by the Bristol engineering company Fusion Processing Ltd, was created to reduce the growing number of cyclist collisions and casualties across the country involving large commercial vehicles. It cleverly uses radar and
	camera sensors to identify when the risk for the cyclist is increased by being in the vehicle’s blind spot, and it gives an audible alert to the driver’s cab. A preliminary trial in London is in progress, and we will consider its implications when there are more data.
	In summary, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to cycle safety and to doing more to improve the safety of vulnerable road users—among whom I include myself, since I cycle every day when I am working in London. In total, we are spending more than twice what the previous Administration spent on cycling. In addition, the Department for Transport’s local sustainable transport fund is providing £540 million for local authorities to prioritise sustainable transport projects, of which 28%—£151 million—is being allocated to cycling projects. However, we will not become complacent, and as I have said already, one death is one too many. That is why I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend once again for securing this important debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.